STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, SCO No.139-140, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2^nd

Through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Harsh Bhargav, Manager (Legal), Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.139-140, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

1.Sh. Krishan Kumar Nanda son of Late Sh. Amar Nath Nanda,

2.Mrs. Renu Nanda wife of Krishan Kumar Nanda,

both residents of House No.821, Sector 12, Panchkula (Haryana).

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

“15.       

i)      To make refund of an amount of Rs.1,49,000/- to the complainants with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization.

ii)     To make payment of compensation of an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants for mental agony and harassment.

iii)   To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants towards costs of litigation.

16.         This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amounts mentioned at S.No.(i) to (ii) of the para aforesaid shall carry penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above.”

2.          

3.          

4.          

5.           provided for 18 months + extended six months, from the date of issuance of allotment letter, and till date, cause of action regarding the property, in dispute, for possession had not arisen. It was further stated that the demand raised by the Opposite Party from the complainants, was wholly legal and as per the agreed terms and conditions. It was further stated that the interest of Rs.1,49,000/- was not paid by the complainants, under protest. It was further stated that the Opposite Party charged interest @18% per annum instead of @24% per annum on delayed payments, as a goodwill gesture. It was further stated that the receipts, Annexure C-22 and C-23, showed that the payment was made on 2.5.2013 and, as such, the question of protest letter on 19.4.2013 did not at all arise. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.        The complainants filed replication, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

7.          

8.           

9.          

10.         

11. , decided on 13.12.2012. It was further submitted that the appeal be allowed and the order of the District Forum, being illegal, null, void and against the settled law, be set aside. 

12.         Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No.14 of 1995) (hereinafter to be referred as the PAPRA 1995), were not complied with by the appellant/Opposite Party. It was further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party, while asking for payment of Rs.9,12,118.19Ps, did not specify, as to how the amount was calculated. It was further submitted that a detailed reply to the demand notice (Annexure C-14) was sent through registered post letter dated 24.01.2013 (Annexures C-15 and C-16 respectively). It was further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party did not clarify, as to how, the amount of interest was worked out. It was further submitted that the payment of Rs.1,49,000/- was made, under protest, and it was submitted that in these circumstances, the respondents/complainants were constrained to sell the property. It was further submitted that after making payment, the protest letter dated 19.4.2013 (Annexure C-24) was issued. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being just and fair, is liable to be upheld.

13.