Haryana

StateCommission

CC/219/2017

RANBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

EARTH INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KAMAL KANT VERMA

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA Panchkula

 

  Date of Instituion:17.04.2017

                Date of final hearing:21.02.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 29.03.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.219 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Ranbir Singh son of Shri Hari Singh, R/o Village Sahanpur, Tehsil Saffidon, District Jind (Haryana)-126115.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. K.K. Verma, Advocate

Versus

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth Infrastructure Ltd. registered office at B-100, 2^nd Floor, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028.

2^nd Address:-

Corp. office: A-1, C&D, Sector-16, near Metro Station, Noida (Uttar Pradesh).

3^rd Address:-

Gurgaon office at:-1501-1503, 15^th Floor, Tower-A, Signature Tower, Gurgaon, Haryana.

….Opposite party

Proceeded against ex-parte

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.K.K. Verma, Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite party proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02^nd September, 2022.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant applied for a 3BHK flat with the opposite party (‘OP’) on 31.08.2011 by paying an amount of Rs.6,88,125/-. OP booked a flat having total area of 1835 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.3750/- per sq. ft. through welcome letter dated 01.09.2011. Complainant has in all paid an amount of Rs.21,45,451/- on different dates to the OP till12.02.2013. It was alleged that neither any document got signed by the complainant nor any agreement has ever been executed between the parties. Thereafter, as OP did not share any details regarding the project i.e. availability, tentative timeline for possession etc., so he visited the office of OP and found the same to be closed and even the project in question was also not found to has even taken off what to talk of completion. He also visited the corporate office of OP at Noida and Gurugram several times, but they didn’t offer any satisfactory reply. He also communicated with the OP through letters and even shot off a legal notice, but the needful was not done by the OP. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  In the end complainant prayed that OP be directed to refund his deposited amount i.e. Rs.21,45,451/- alongwith compound interest at the rate of 19% p.a from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops, however despite service they failed to appear before this Commission following which they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02^nd September, 2022.

3.                When this complaint was posted for recording ex-parte evidence of the complainant, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Ranbir Singh as Ex.CA, vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                The arguments were advanced by Mr. K.K. Verma, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averments raised in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already deposited, alongwith the interest or not? 

6.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Mr. K.K. Verma, learned counsel for the complainant that entire evidence of complainant has gone unrebutted so the question of booking of the flat with OP by paying an amount of Rs.6,88,125/- stands proved by acknowledgment (Ex.C-1). Welcome letter dated 01.09.2011 (Ex.C-2) issued by OP is also not contested. It is also not denied that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.21,45,451/- (Ex. C-3 to Ex.C-8) to the OP.  It is also not in dispute that the flat in question was having total area of 1835 sq. ft. @ Rs.3750/- per sq. ft. However, the OP failed to execute any Flat Buyer’s Agreement despite complainant having deposited an amount of Rs.21,45,451/- has failed either to deliver the possession of flat or in the alternative or to refund the deposited amount. In these circumstances, the complainant was left with no other option, but, to seek refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he had already paid, as he does not think that OP will be able to put him into possession of the flat. 

7.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the OP-builder, residential unit having total area of 1835 sq. ft. @ Rs.3750/- per sq. ft. was purchased by the complainant against which an amount of Rs.21,45,451/-  has already been paid.  OP failed to execute Flat Buyer’s Agreement. To the utter surprise of this Commission it is quite surprising as to how inspite of the fact that after the expiry of a long period, the possession of the flat has not been delivered by OP.  As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is the normal trend of the developers that  developer would collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly, the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in services of OPs and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.21,45,451/- (Rs. Twenty one lacs forty five thousand four hundred and fifty one only)   which he had already deposited with the OP. Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for his having invested a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount. In such like cases, the Commission had to deal with the developers with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

8.                As regard the rate of interest to be awarded, it may be relevant to keep the following factors into consideration keeping in view the recent periodic revision of repo rate by Monetary Policy Committee of Reserve Bank of India and consequent upward revision of Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) by Nationalized Banks, there has been an increase in lending rate by the Nationalized banks accordingly it would, in our considered view, be just fair and reasonable to award 9% as rate of interest to the complainant.

9.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the OP is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.21,45,451/- (Rs. Twenty one lacs forty five thousand four hundred and fifty one only)   alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) as litigation charges. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attractable.

10.              Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 29^th March, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                                                            Judicial Member                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench

 

           

 

                                                                                                S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                     Addl. Bench

R.K