Haryana

StateCommission

CC/46/2015

ANKIT BANSAL AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

DLF HOMES - Opp.Party(s)

BIJENDER KAUSHIK

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No: 46 of 2015

Date of Institution:     24.04.2015

Date of Decision:      08.09.2016

1.     Ankit Bansal s/o Sh. Vijay Bansal, Resident of House No.16, Urban Estate-2, Hisar, Haryana.

2.     Mrs. Neha Bansal w/o Sh. Vaibhav Bansal, Resident of House No.16, Urban Estate-2, Hissar, Haryana.

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, SCO 190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.      Managing Director, M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Registered Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                              

 

Argued by:          Shri Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for complainants.

Shri Gaurav G.S. Chauhan, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   Ankit Bansal and Neha Bansal-complainants filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, submitting that they booked two plots of 334.50 Square meters, that is, one plot for Ankit Bansal and one for Neha Bansal w/o Sh. Vaibhav Bansal, with DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘builder’)-Opposite Parties. Plots No.DVP-F2/10 and No.DVP-F2/12, Block No.R-1 in DLF Valley, Panchkula, Pinjore were allotted to the complainants vide letters dated 30.12.2011 (Exhibits C-3 and C-4). They paid Rs.28,56,421/- and Rs.28,56,422/- respectively, that is, total Rs.Rs.57,12,843/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibits C-5 to C-14. The possession of the plots was to be delivered to the complainants within 24 months from the date of the booking, that is, on or before December 30^th, 2013. The complainants approached the builder to hand over possession but instead of delivering possession, the builder cancelled the allotment vide letters dated 16.11.2013 (Exhibits C-17 and C-18).  The complainants have come up for refund of their amounts.

2.                The opposite parties-builder contested the complaint by filing written version. It was admitted that two plots, stated above, were allotted to the complainants for which they paid Rs.57,12,843/-, that is, Rs.28,56,421/- by Ankit Bansal and Rs.28,56,422/-  by Neha Bansal. It was stated that the complainants did not make payment of the instalments as per the payment schedule and for that reason the allotment was cancelled vide letters Exhibits C-17 and C-18 and amounts of Rs.37,21,662/- and Rs.21,18,595/- qua plots of Neha Bansal and Ankit Bansal, were forfeited. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The complainants examined Vaibhav Bansal as CW-1. Affidavit of CW-1 and documents Exhibits C-1 to C-37 were also tendered.

4.                The opposite parties-builder examined tendered affidavit of Shiv Kumar, authorised signatory besides documents Annexure R-1 to R-3.

5.                It is admitted case of the parties that both the complainants had booked one plot each with the builder-opposite parties. The complainants were required to pay the price of the plots as per payment schedule. It is also not in dispute that the possession of the plots were to be handed over to the complainants within 24 months from the date of application, that is, on or before December 30^th, 2013 but the possession was not delivered.  Ankit Bansal paid Rs.28,56,421/- and Neha Bansal paid Rs.28,56,422/-, that is, both the complainants paid Rs.57,12,843/- to the builder but the remaining instalments were not paid. The allotment was cancelled and amounts of Rs.37,21,662/- and Rs.21,18,595/- qua plots of Neha Bansal and Ankit Bansal, were forfeited.

6.                The builder-opposite parties wrote a letter dated 16^th May, 2012 (Exhibit C-37) to the complainants informing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stopped the on-going construction activities forthwith and that as per Clause 26 of the application for allotment of plot, the builder was not liable for the time schedule. It is only thereafter that the complainants stopped the payment to the builder and certainly, since the payment was construction linked and the construction had been stopped by the builder, therefore non-payment by the complainants cannot be termed as default on their part. As certainly complainants have paid instalments as per schedule prior to time. For ready reference, the relevant part of the letter (Exhibit C-37) reads as under:-

“It may further be pointed out that as per Clause 26 of the Application for Allotment of Plot, it is specifically provided that in the event of any force majeure conditions, the company may put the construction of the project in abeyance and will not be liable for the performance of any of its obligations during subsistence of force majeure conditions.”

7.                Pursuance to letter dated 16.05.2012 (Exhibit C-37), the payment being development/construction linked and the opposite parties-builder intimating complainants that it shall not be liable for this time schedule, the complainants could not be blamed for non-payment thereafter. Therefore, under those circumstances, the builder was not justified in cancelling allotment and forfeit any amount. The complainants were justified in seeking refund of their amount.  In view of the above, it is held that the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainants, alongwith interest and compensation.

8.                Hence, the complaint is allowed. The builder-Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount deposited, to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.10,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid to the complainants within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.              

 

Announced 08.09.2016

Urvashi Agnihotri Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL