Haryana

StateCommission

A/911/2015

VEENA NOUGAIN/NARAYAN DATT NOUGAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

FERRIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KUNAL GARG

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.911 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 20.10.2015

Date of Decision: 03.03.2016

 

Veena Nougain/Narayan Datt Naugain R/o A-2, IInd Floor, Plot No.104, Sector 2-A, Vaishali Ghaziabad.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      Director M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Ist Floor, Block-B, Vatika Towers golf course Road,Sector-54, Gurgaon 122002.

2.      Project In-Charge M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Sector-19, Dharuhera Haryana.

                                                                            .….Respondents

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

          Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

Present:-    Mr.Kunal Garg, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

          Mr.Saurabh Goel, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainant that he booked flat with the respondents-opposite Parties (O.Ps.) and paid Rs.13,86,550/- as and when due and last installment was paid on 16.03.2011.  The possession was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of flat buyers agreement i.e. 05.07.2008, but, the possession was not delivered till the date.  So O.Ps. be directed to pay as under:-

“1.     To pay interest @ 12% per annum on deposited   amount Rs.13,39,464/- from Ist September, 2011 till the date of decision of this forum.

2.      To pay interest @ 12% continuously thereafter till   possession of the flat with promised infrastructure.

          3.      To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

         4.       Cost for mental suffering as appropriately decided           

                   by  this Hon’ble Forum.

5.      Penalty as deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble   Forum.”

2.      Respondents-O.Ps. alleged that flat was ready for the possession, but, external & internal development ( In short “E.D.C. & I.D.C.”) were not completed by the Government despite deposit of Rs.Ten crores  as of “E.D.C. & I.D.C.” charged.  The structure of the flat was ready and complainant could take possession as and when required.  The fault was not with it after deposit of the requisite amount.  The project was situated in Rewari and District Forum Gurgaon was not having territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter.  Objections about concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  28.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“We direct the opposite parties to refund the entire  amount of Rs.13,39,464/- to the complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 12.06.2012 till realization.  The complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony caused by the opposite parties to the complainants.  The complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-“

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the rate of interest should have been 24% per annum and that should have been given from the date of deposit of the amount instead of date of filing of complaint.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant vehemently argued that O.P. charged interest @ 24% per annum in case of any fault on behalf of the allottee. So it is also bound to pay the same at that very rate, whereas the learned District Forum has awarded interest @ 9% per annum.  The interest should have been awarded from the date of deposit and not from the date of filing of complaint.  Impugned order dated 28.09.2015 be modified accordingly.  In support of his arguments he is placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission in M/s Ashiana Housing Ltd. Vs. Yog Raj Vij 2015 (2) CLT, Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. 2007 (2) CLT 440,  JTPL towenships ovt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Devi, 2016 (10 CLT 277 and C.C. No.347 of 2014 titled as Swaran Talwar and two others vs M/s Unitech ltd. decided on 14.08.2015.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force.  As per O.Ps. amount about EDC and IDC charges had already been deposited with the Government of Haryana and that is to provide those facilities.  When the O.Ps. have deposited the amount for development it cannot be considered that there is any deficiency on it’s part.  Had the O.Ps. not deposited the amount with the Government then it could have been a different matter. So complainant cannot ask that the O.Ps. should also be directed to deposit amount to pay interest @ 24% as claimed by it.  The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because in those cases the builder was at fault, whereas it is not so in the present case.  It may be mentioned here that the learned District Forum has directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant, whereas from the perusal of the prayer clause it is clear that complainant only requested for the interest and not the refund of the amount, but, any how the O.Ps. have not raised any objection qua the same, so we are not dealing with this point.  In complaint, the complainant requested for the interest @ 12% per annum, whereas the learned District forum has awarded @ 9% per annum from the date of fling of the complaint, which is not on the lower side.            Impugned order qua interest cannot be held as erroneous, so the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

March 03, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri,Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.