Haryana

StateCommission

CC/430/2016

DR.RAJ MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.SHARMA

26 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.430 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution: 20.12.2016                         Date of Decision: 26.10.2017

 

Dr.(Mrs.) Raj Mittal Professor Physics Department, Punjabi University Patiala-147002 (Resident of Kothi No.4302 Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala).

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1. D.L.F. Home Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.101-102, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Kishangarh Chandigarh through its authorized signatory/officer.
2. DLF Homes, Panchkula Private Limited, 12^th Floor DLF Gateway Tower, DLF City Phase-IIINH-8, Gurgaon.

…..Opposite parties

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

Mr. Gaurav G.S.Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

As per complainant she booked independent floor with opposite parties (O.Ps.) having value of Rs.45,44,599.75 paise.  Vide letter dated 17.05.2010 this unit was allotted to her and buyers agreement was executed in between them on 25.01.2011. As per clause No.11A, possession was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of date of execution of the same. She has already deposited Rs.42,98,033/- with the O.Ps. and Rs.2,77,888/- were credited to her account as discount. The possession was not delivered to her as yet, so she be granted following relief:-

“i.       to hand over the possession of Independent   Floor of property No.DVF-B1/32/-GF DLF Valley Panchkula within time specified by this Hon’ble Court.

ii.       To pay the compensation to the complainant for   the period of delay in delivery of possession.

iii.      To pay the interest on the amounts deposited    with OP’s at the rates on which the interest has been charged from complainant.

iv.      to reimburse the interest paid to LIC Housing   Finance Ltd and interest lost on deposits from her lifelong earnings at the rates charged from complainant.

v.       To pay compensation for mental agony and    harassment to tune of Rs.Five lakhs.,

          vi.      Complaint be allowed with exemplary costs.

          vii      Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission           

may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also awarded.”

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting her averments and alleged that possession was offered to her vide letter dated 10.10.2016, but, she did not come forward to take possession.  She can get the possession as per escalation cost. At the most she could ask for compensation for non-delivery of possession as per clause 15 of agreement.  Possession could not be delivered to her because firstly Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed construction. Ultimately the matter was decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012.  The complainant was offered exit option alongwith the refund of amount with interest @ 9% but she did not accept that offer.  Possession could not be delivered due to litigation before Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, so there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint be dismissed.

3.      Both the parties have led their evidence.

4.      Arguments heard. File perused.

5.      Learned counsel for O.Ps. vehemently argued that construction could not be completed in time because vide order dated 06.04.2010, passed in CWP No.6230 of 2010 copy of which is Ex.R-3, Honble High Court restrained them from creating any third party right or changing nature of the land. When there was stay order it was not possible to raise any construction because it would have amounted contempt of court. This delay is covered by force majeure. Exit option was given to complainant vide letter dated 05.06.2013 copy of which is Ex.R-1, but, despite that she preferred to retain this unit. So it can not be alleged that there was any fault on their part. Moment stay order was vacated construction was completed and possession was offered vide letter dated 10.10.2016, copy of which is Ex.R-2 ,but, she did not come forward for taking possession. So there is no fault on their part and they cannot be directed to return the amount deposited by her or to pay any compensation.

6.      This argument is of no avail. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that agreement was executed on 25.01.2011, whereas order Ex.R-3 was passed on 06.04.2010 by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.  Said order was stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court  on  23.07.2010 in civil appeal No.10663 of 2010 Ex.R/4. It shows that when agreement was executed there was no stay order about construction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed construction from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012 which is clear from the perusal of order Ex.R/5 dated  19.04.2012 and Ex.R/6 dated 12.12.2012. So O.Ps. can take benefit of eight months only. If they gave option of exit it does not mean that complainant is not entitled for any compensation.  It is no-where mentioned therein that thereafter she will be not entitled for any compensation.  Complainant is an employee and hard earned money was invested to purchase this property, but, O.ps. delayed possession under one pretext or the other, so they are liable to pay compensation as prayed for. These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Major General Vikram Puri(Retd.)  & Anr. Vs. Umang Realtech (P) Ltd. & Ors. 1 (2017) CPJ 576 (NC) and opinion of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh expressed in consumer complaint No.712 of 2016 titled as Jatinder Singh Vs. DLF Homes, Panchkula decided on 20.01.2017.  As per details mentioned above, it is clear that complainant deposited amount continuously with all promptness, but, O.Ps. did not complete construction.

7.      As a sequel to above discussion, complaint is allowed and  O.ps. are directed to deliver possession of the unit in question and should pay the compensation @ Rs.10/- per square feet as per clause 15 of agreement for the delayed period minus the period when there was stay order from Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court as discussed above till delivery of possession. The O.Ps. will also pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the deposited amount for the period as mentioned above.  Complainant is also held entitled to Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

October 26th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Member Addl.Bench

S.K.