Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/114/2016

DLF Homes Panchkula - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganesh Pal Mittal - Opp.Party(s)

19 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                      

Appeal No.	:	114 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	12.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	20.04.2016

 

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Limited, SCO No.190-191, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

 

V e r s u s

1. Ganesh Pal Mittal, resident of H.No.588, Sector 9, Panchkula.
2. Chhavi Mittal wife of Ganesh Pal Mittal, resident of H.No.588, Sector 9, Panchkula.

 

              ....Respondents/Complainants

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Ms.Ekta Jhanji, Advocate for the appellant.  

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.01.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only) vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the opposite party (now appellant) as under:-

“[a] To pay interest @9% per annum on the principal amount from 18.07.2013 to 26.02.2014;

[b]  Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]   Pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] and [c] above.”

2.       Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 50 days (as per office 49 days), in filing the same (appeal), has been filed by the appellant.
3.       The poor respondents had booked an independent floor, in a project, launched by the appellant/opposite party, under the name and style “DLF Valley’. For the said purpose, an amount of Rs.4 lacs, was paid on 25.03.2011, as booking amount. Buyer’s Agreement was signed on 19.01.2012. Total price of the unit was fixed at Rs.65,92,500/-, which included EDC, IBMS, IDC etc. As per admission made by the appellant, upto 08.07.2013, the respondents had paid an amount of Rs.20,63,876/-. Project failed to take off, on account of many reasons, including an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, staying construction activities, in the area, which remained valid from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012. When above stay order was vacated, the appellant wrote a letter to all the purchases of units/plots, in the project, in question, on 08.07.2013 and an option was given to get possession of the units/plots, within an extended period of 12 months, or, in the alternative, it was said that the purchasers were free to get refund of amount paid, with simple interest @9% p.a. The relevant stipulation made in the said  letter reads thus:-

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP No.27186-88/2010 vide its order dated 12.12.2012 and the earlier order dated 19.04.2012 passed by Supreme Court to not to undertake further construction activities at the project land stands vacated.

The company will endeavour to complete the Project subject to the delay of 12 months which has occurred due to stoppage of the work mentioned above. We may also like to mention that for such delay the company is not liable for performance of its obligations as per the terms of the allotment of apartment as set out in clause 18 of the Application for allotment of apartment.

We request you to confirm that you will agree to the above conditions for additional time to be taken for completion of the construction. In case you do not agree to the above, the Company will cancel the allotment and refund the amount paid by you along with simple interest calculated @9% p.a.”

4.       It is admitted by both the parties that request for refund was made by the respondents, by writing a letter dated 22.07.2013. No action was taken by the appellant. Rather, the respondents were forced to pay an amount of Rs.42,809/-, on 03.12.2013. Thereafter, amount was returned to the respondents, in the shape of demand draft, for Rs.22,57,550.42Ps., vide letter dated 27.02.2014. When making above payment, interest was calculated only upto 08.07.2013 and not upto the date of payment i.e. 26.02.2014. The payment was deposited in the year 2011 and against total payment of Rs.21,06,685/- (Rs.20,63,876/- plus (+) Rs.42,809/-), only an amount of Rs.22,57,550.42Ps., was returned.
5.       We have seen the contents of letter dated 08.07.2013 and are of the opinion that interest should have been paid by the appellant, from the respective dates of deposits made. It is not possible for us to say anything further, because such a relief has not been claimed by the respondents, when consumer complaint was filed. The respondents were very reasonable by filing a complaint, wherein they had claimed interest @9% p.a. only, for the period falling between 18.07.2013 (when opted for return of their money) till 26.02.2014 (when actually payment was made). The act and conduct of the respondents is very genuine. As such, relief granted by the Forum, is perfectly justified. No ground, whatsoever, has been made out by the appellant, to interfere in the order under challenge.
6.       The appellant was also not justified in deducting the amount against TDS. However, as no dispute has been raised qua that amount, it is not possible for us to pass any order, with regard to the same.
7.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
8.       In view of the order passed above, application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 50 days (as per office 49 days), in filing the appeal, is dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
9.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

20.04.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg