Haryana

StateCommission

A/943/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JITESH KUMAR MEHTANI - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.943 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 28.10.2015                         Date of Decision: 03.04.2017

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited A company registered under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956; Having its registered office at Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi 110032, (Through its Authorised signatory Mr. R.C.Gupta General Manager)

…..Appellant

                                      VERSUS

1.      Jitesh Kumar Mehtani

2.      Nitin Mehtani

Both are: S/o Sh. Subhash Chander, R/o S.No.585, Sector-11, Panchkula.

          …..Respondents

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.Aftab Singh proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

Complainant booked two flats with appellants-O.Ps. on 18.10.2010 and deposited Rs.8,90,095/-, but, the flat buyers agreement was executed in between them on 08.02.2011 and possession was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of construction. They regularly paid the installments, but, the possession was not delivered to them.  Vide letter dated 10.01.2015 O.Ps. demanded Rs.29,81,877.56 paise from them. They requested to settle the matter, but , allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 28.01.2015.  On 10.02.2015 their father visited the spot and found that construction was only upto 8^th floor without any external development etc. so Ops be directed to withdraw letter dated 28.01.2015 and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting their averments and alleged that the complainants opted for construction linked payment plan. Out of the sale price they deposited only Rs.20,76,888/- letters and reminders were written to them on following dates i.e. 16.11.2010, 15.12.2010, 03.09.2011, 18.04.2012, 01.08.2012, 17.08.2012, 05.09.2012, 10.01.2013, 13.12.2012, 10.12.2012, 12.12.2012, 08.11.2012, 11.02.2013, 16.04.2013, 01.05.2013, 01.04.2013, 22.05.2013, 11.06.2013, 17.09.2013, 14.11.2013, 14.12.2013, 06.01.2014, 17.02.2014, 02.05.2014, 06.06.2014, 20.06.2014, 01.07.2014 (2 letters), 11.07.2014, 22.07.2014, 10.01.2015 and 28.01.2015.  When no payment was made they were left with no alternative except to cancel the allotment.  Objections about non-joinder of parties, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint  vide order dated 24.09.2015 and directed as under:-

“a.     The OPs shall withdraw the notice dated 28.01.2015 within seven days from the receipt of a copy of this order. In case of a default, the notice would stand automatically quashed.

b.      The complainants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to them.

c.       The complainants shall be entitled to be litigation fee of Rs.10,000/-.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants-O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      There is no dispute that the O.Ps.-appellants cannot be debarred from demanding remaining payment, but, when they have not completed construction in time they were not entitled to cancel the allotment. If we go through impugned order dated 24.09.2015 then it will be clear that pith and substance of this order pertains to restoration of allotment and not restraining appellants from raising any demand. The complainants have made huge payments as mentioned above. They are  having every right to retain the allotment subject to payment of the amount due towards them as per agreement executed in between the parties. Resultantly sub para (a) of Para 14 of impugned order is modified to the extent that O.Ps. will withdraw the notice dated 28.01.2015 as far as it pertains to cancellation of the allotment of the plot in question to the complainants, but, they will be entitled to raise the demand about the payment due towards complainant. In case complainants fail to make payment as per agreement then O.ps.-appellants may initiate new process about cancellation of allotment.

7.      With this modification the appeal stands disposed of.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

April 3rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Member Addl.Bench

S.K.