Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/346/2015

Ganesh Pal Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/346/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	02/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	13/01/2016

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Ganesh Pal Mittal, resident of H.No.588, Sector 9, Panchkula.

 

2.   Chhavi Mittal wife of Ganesh Pal Mittal, resident of H.No.588, Sector 9, Panchkula.

…........... Complainants.

Vs

 

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Limited, SCO 190-191, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

…............ Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP	:	Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainants had booked an independent floor (No.DVF-D2/19-GF) in DLF Valley, Panchkula and paid an amount of Rs.20,63,876/- in all to the Opposite Party. A buyer’s agreement was also signed between the parties on 19.01.2012. It has been averred that on account of order dated 19.05.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21786-88/2010 the Opposite Party put the construction work in abeyance due to which there had been delay in construction. However, on dismissal of the said SLP on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 08.07.2013 (Annexure C-2) gave an option to the Complainants either to wait for 12 months or it would cancel the allotment and refund the amount paid by them along with simple interest @9% p.a. In response whereof vide letter dated 22.7.2013, the Complainants opted for the second option and requested for refund along with 9% interest (Annexure C-3). On receipt of the request, the Opposite Party assured to make the refund within 10 days. However, the Opposite Party took seven months time to process the refund of the Complainants and eventually sent a draft for an amount of Rs.22,57,550/- by calculating the interest @9% only upto 18.07.2013 vide letter Annexure C-7. Further, an amount of Rs.39,469.07P was deducted as TDS by the Opposite Party. As the delay was on the part of the Opposite Party, according to the Complainants, it (OP) is liable to pay the interest till actual date of payment and not till the date of request for refund. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party Parties in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the principal amount deposited by the Complainants was Rs.20,63,876/- and the amount refunded to them was along with 9% interest till the date of consent letter dated 22.07.2013. At the time of making refund, the Opposite Party had rightfully deducted the TDS charges along with brokerage charges of Rs.39,469.05P and Rs.1,61,547/- respectively. It has been asserted that the Opposite Party vide DD No. 000665 dated 05.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.97,550/- made the payment in favour of the Complainants vide letter dated 12.06.2015. The said payment of Rs.97,550/- was an addition to the amount of Rs.22,57,550/-. Therefore, the Complainants have so far received a total amount of Rs.23,55,100/- from the Opposite Party, henceforth there is no dispute of any payment to be made by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainants. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides. 

 

6.      It is a case where the Opposite Party has already paid interest @9% per annum on the principal amount upto 18.07.2013. It is borne on record that the Opposite Party has failed to pay the interest upto the date of payment. We are of the concerted view that the interest @9% per annum is payable on the principal amount till the actual date of payment, which the Opposite Party failed to pay to the Complainant. Hence, we draw conclusion that the Opposite Party is deficient in providing proper services to the Complainant and found to be indulged in unfair trade practice.

 

7.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]  To pay interest @9% per annum on the principal amount from 18.07.2013 to 26.02.2014;

[b]  Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c] Pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

8.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] and [c] above.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13^th January, 2016                                                                                   

             Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER