Haryana

StateCommission

A/1075/2016

M2K COUNTRY HEIGHTS - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOGINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

JAINAINDER SAINI

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    1075 of 2016

Date of Institution:  08.11.2016

Date of Decision:   19.12.2016

 

M/s M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (through Manager) E-13/29, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place, New Delhi, 110001 through its Authorized Representative.

….Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Mr. Joginder Singh S/o Hukum Singh, R/o Jai Vihar Colony, Village & P.O. Jharsa, Near Sector-46, District Gurgaon.

 

                                                ….Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the appellant.             

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

M/s M2K Infrastructure Private Limited-opposite party has filed this appeal against the order dated September 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed to refund Rs.7,19,469/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its payment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order; Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- litigation expenses to Joginder Singh-complainant.

2.      The complainant booked a Flat No.C-705 in Tower C in the residential project “Country Heights”, Rewari on December 23^rd, 2006. The total amount paid by him was Rs.7,19,469/-. As per the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 36 months from Bhoomi Poojan. The Bhoomi Poojan was held on January, 2007 and as pleaded by the complainant, till 2009 construction was not completed.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complainant did not deposit the installments, so, his flat was cancelled in the year 2011.

4.      It is not in dispute that the flat was booked in the year 2006. There is nothing on record to show that an attempt was ever made by the builder to offer possession to the complainant. The builder even failed to complete the construction after passing of seven years. The builder has not been able to show any justifiable reason not to complete the construction. The builder is trying to feather its own nest, that is, to make profit, for itself, at the cost of others. It will be travesty if the complainant is made to suffer for the deliberate, inaction and negligence of the builder.  Thus the District Forum was justified in directing the builder to refund the amount to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.  No case for interference is made out.  The appeal is dismissed. 

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

  

Announced 19.12.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

UK