JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

           The complainant / appellant booked a residential plot with the respondent in a project namely Hyde Park, Estate at Village Salamtpur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar of Punjab and plot No. HPE-R1-A112 measuring 350 sq. yds. was allotted to her vide allotment letter dated 31.3.2011.  As per the down payment plan opted by the appellant / complainant, Rs.12.00 lacs were to be paid at the time of booking and 95% of the total price and 95% of the EDC were to be paid within 45 days.  The balance 5% payment along with the other charges was to be paid on the offer of possession.  Since the plot allotted to the complainant was situated at a preferential location, a sum of Rs.9,80,051.36 had been demanded as preferential location charges from her.  The complainant vide letter dated 15.5.2011, while making payment of Rs.67,94,447.50, maintained that since no preference was indicated by her in the application form,  preferential location charges were not applicable.  She also conveyed her consent for change of the plot from a preferential location to a non-preferential location.  Vide letter dated 12.4.2012, the respondent changed the plot allotted to the complainant from HPE-R1-A112 to HPE-R-1-E307 and transferred the payment made by her to the new account.  The parties then entered into a buyers agreement dated 25.7.2012.  While issuing the revised allotment letter it was stated that the club charges of Rs.76,000/- were also payable as applicable, in addition to the sale consideration of Rs.87,76,911.68.  As per the buyers agreement the possession of the plot was to be delivered within twenty four months of the execution of the said agreement.  The possession of the plot was eventually offered to the complainant vide letter dated 03.7.2015.  While offering possession to the complainant, a sum of Rs.20,41,614.26 was demanded from her.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,46,246/- on 31.7.2015 along with payment of Rs.40,123/- comprising Rs.32,737.89 towards delayed interest and Rs.7,385.11 towards EDC.  Being aggrieved from the amount demanded by the respondent, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent.  The delay in execution of the buyers agreement was sought to be justified on the ground that the said delay had taken place due to request of the complainant for change of the plot allotted to her.

3.      The State Commission vide impugned order dated 18.8.2016 directed as under:

“(i)     The complainant is directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.3,89,935.19 to the opposite parties, as rightly demanded by the opposite parties, stipulated from statement of account, in the tabular form, as possession has already been taken by her, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order, till actual payment;

(ii)      The opposite parties are directly jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lacs only), to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the opposite parties shall pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

(iii)     The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the opposite parties shall pay the aforesaid amount along with simple interest @ 155 per annum from the date of filing the complaint, till actual payment”.

Being dissatisfied with the above referred order of the State Commission, the complainant / appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.

4.      The case of the complainant / appellant is that the possession of the plot ought to have been delivered to her within twenty four months from the date on which the allotment letter was issued i.e. within two years from 31.3.2011.  The aforesaid plea, in my view, cannot be accepted since as per Clause 32 of the buyers agreement, duly executed between the parties, the possession was to be delivered within two years from the date of the said agreement.  Having executed the buyers agreement without any protest in this regard, the complainant cannot take the plea that the possession ought to have been delivered to her by 30.3.2013.  It would also be pertinent to note here that it was the complainant herself who sought the change of the plot allotted to her and the said request, according to the respondent resulted in delayed execution of the buyers agreement.  Be that as it may, the fact remains that having executed the buyers agreement without any protest as regard the time period for the delivery of the possession, the complainant is bound by the terms of the said agreement and therefore, the possession could be delivered by 24.7.2014, as held by the State Commission.

5.      During the course of hearing before the State Commission, the respondent filed a revised calculation sheet demanding only a sum of Rs.3,89,935.19 from the complainant after crediting compensation for the delay beyond 24.7.2014, in offering possession to her.  The State Commission on examining the said statement upheld the demand based upon the revised calculation sheet.  I have also perused the revised calculation sheet as produced in the order of the State Commission and the revised demand, in my view, cannot be said to be unfair or illegal in any manner.  The complainant ought to have taken possession on receipt of the offer dated 03.7.2015.  Having delayed in taking of possession, she has only herself to blame for the said delay.

6.      I also find that despite upholding the revised demand, the State Commission has awarded compensation quantified at Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant for the mental agony alleged to have been suffered by her.  The possession of the plot having already been taken by her, the direction for payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,89,935.19 along with interest from the date of the order, cannot be said to be unreasonable or uncalled for.  The complainant in any case will get Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation, along with Rs.1.00 lacs as cost of litigation.  The impugned order therefore does not call for any interference by this Commission, at the instance of the complainant in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.  The Appeal is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.