Haryana

StateCommission

CC/120/2016

NEELIMA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SHEENU SURA

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.120 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution: 11.05.2016

          Date of Decision: 05.07.2017

 

Mrs. Neelima Singh W/o Mr. Maninder Singh R/o L-173, Army Flats, Sector-4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

Versus

1.      DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Shop NO.101-102, DLF City Centre, IT Park, Kishan Garh, Chandigarh.

2.      DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 12^th Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, National Highway-8,Gurgaon through its authorized representative.

…..Opposite parties

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mrs.Sheenu Sura, 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 :-

It is alleged by the complainant that she booked a unit by depositing Rs.4,00,000/- on 16.08.2010 and in pursuance of the same O.Ps. allotted independent Floor bearing No.D3/8-GF measuring approximately 167.525/- sq. meter. Buyer’s agreement was executed in between them on 31.01.2011 and possession was to be handed over within 24 months thereof. She has already deposited Rs.50,10,714/- with O.Ps as detailed in Para No.9 of the complaint, which is as under:-

“(i)     Rs.8,98,555/- (Rs. Eight lac ninety thousand five hundred fifty five only) through cheque NO.143694 dated 19.01.2011 drawn on HDFC LTD, payable at Chandigarh.

(ii)      Rs.8,98,555/- (Rs. Eight Lac Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five only) through demand draft No.040791 dated 25.01.2011, drawn at ICICI Bank Ltd, Payable at Chandigarh.

(iii)     Rs.10,432.73/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Four Hundred thirty Two only) through Cheque No.386435 dated 09.02.2011 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Payable at Manimajra.

(iv)    Rs.6,54,925/- (Rs. Six Lac Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five Only) through Cheque No.143695 dated 18.03.2011.

(v)     Rs.38,684/- (Rs. Thirty Eight thousand Six Hundred Eighty Four Only) through Cheque No.526704 dated 13.03.2012 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Payable at New Delhi. Receipt regarding that cheque is dated 26.03.2012.

(vi)    Rs.8,13,834/- (Rs. Eight Lac thirteen Thousand eight Hundred Thirty Four only) through Cheque No.000017 dated 11.03.2014 drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd, Payable at Chandigarh. Receipt regarding that cheque is dated 12.03.2014.

(vii)    Rs.6,58,956/- (Rs. Six lac Fifty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Six only) through cheque No.HDFC 14106753773 dated 16.04.2014, drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd, Payable at Chandigarh.

(viii)   Rs.6,57,426/- (Rs. Six lac Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Six only) through cheque NO.000037 dated 21.05.2014, drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd, payable at Chandigarh. Receipt regarding that cheque is dated 22.05.2014.

Since execution of agreement 3-4 years have passed, but, the  O.ps. have not delivered possession.  So they be directed to refund the amount deposited by her alongwith interest and other compensation as prayed for.

2.      O.ps. filed reply admitting booking of unit and payments made by her, but, alleged that possession could not be delivered within 24 months because construction  of the project was stayed by Hon’ble High Court. Ultimately that order was set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012.  This delay is covered by the clause of force meajure. Vide letter dated 08.07.2013 complainant was offered exit option and refund of entire amount alongwith interest @ 9%, but, she did not avail the same. At present so many units are complete and possession has been offered.  Occupancy certificate of the floor in question was received on 09.09.2016 and offer of possession is going to be sent to complainant shortly. Objections about jurisdiction of Commission relationship of consumer and service provider etc. are also raised and it is requested that the 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-6, 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 to contempt of court. This delay is covered by force majeure. Exit option was given to complainant vide letter dated 09.03.2016 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 06.09.2016, but, she has 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 31.01.2011, whereas order Ex.R-6 was  passed on 06.04.2010, the said order was stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court  vide order dated  23.07.2010 passed in civil appeal No.10663 of 2010 Ex.R/7. 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/8 dated  19.04.2012 and Ex.R/9 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.  This letter was written on 09.03.2016 whereas time to deliver possession elapsed on 31.01.2012. So O.Ps. cannot escape from their liability to refund the amount deposited by complainant alongwith interest. Complainant is wife of army personnel and hard and earned money has been invested to purchase the property, but, O.ps. delayed the possession under one pretext or the other. These views are 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 refund the payment of Rs.50,10,714/- to the complainant alongiwth interest @ 12% per annum from the date when they agreed to deliver possession till the actual possession was delivered.  Complainant is also held entitled to Rs.51,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony etc. and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

July 05th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.