Haryana

StateCommission

CC/93/2015

HARJEEVAN KAUR GAREWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

LANDMARK APARTMENT PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.KHATRI

05 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                        

Complaint No     :   93  of 2015

Date of Institution:  05.06.2015

Date of Decision :   05.05.2016

1.     Mrs. Harjeevan Kaur Garewal wife of late Shri Kanwaljit Singh Garewal

2.     Shri Apporvajit Singh Garewal son of late Shri Kanwaljit Singh Garewal,

         Both Residents of House No.536, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

                                      Complainants

Versus

 

M/s Landmark Apartment Private Limited, Gurgaon through its Directors (1) Shri Sandeep Chhillar son of Shri Kartar Singh (2) Shri Yashvir Kadayan son of Shri Raghbir Singh Kadayan, Office at Plot No.85, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                             Opposite Party

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:              Ms. Harjeevan Kaur Garewal-complainant in person with Shri Vishal Nehra, Advocate.

                             Shri S.S. Mor, Advocate for Opposite Party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   Harjeevan Kaur Garewal and her son Apporvajit Singh Garewal-Complainants, have filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the the Act), with the allegations that pursuance to the advertisement published by M/s Landmark Apartment Private Limited-Opposite Party, they applied for purchase of space for shop in the upcoming project namely “Landmark The Mall at Sector-66, Gurgaon” of the opposite party for their personal livelihood. They purchased shop No.40 on the ground floor with tentative area of 520 square feet @ Rs.5770/- per square feet and paid total consideration amount of Rs.30.00 lacs. An agreement was executed on 11.12.2008. The project was to be completed within three years from the date of booking/agreement dated 11.12.2007. The opposite party having not started the project despite lapse of more than three years, the complainants got issued legal notice (Exhibit C-4) seeking refund of the amount alongwith interest as per agreement. The opposite party did not pay the amount; the complainants filed the present complaint.

2.                The opposite party contested the complaint by filing reply. The opposite party admitted having been issued licence by the authorities. The opposite party also admitted complainants having booked the space for shop and having paid Rs.30.00 lacs. The opposite party did not deny the allegation that it (opposite party) failed to complete the project despite lapse of more than eight years as against the agreed period of three years.

3.                Evidence was led by the parties in support of their respective claims. Mrs. Harjeevan Kaur Garewal-complainant, has appeared her own witness as CW-1 besides tendering affidavit Exhibit C-5 and documents Exhibits C-1 to C-4.

4.                On the other hand, the opposite party tendered affidavit of Shri Rajesh Grewal, authorised representatives besides tendering documents Exhibits R-1 and R-2.

5.                Heard. File perused.

6.                The complainants having booked the space for shop for their livelihood, is undisputed fact. Application Form has been placed on the file as Exhibit C-1; Memorandum of Understanding Exhibit C-2; Receipt Exhibit C-3; Notice Exhibit C-4 and affidavit of complainant Mrs. Harjeevan Kaur Grewal Exhibit C-5.

7.                The opposite party tendered affidavit of Rajesh Grewal, besides placing on the file calculation-sheet having paid the amount of Rs.18,51,552/- to the complainants towards payment of assured return for three years.

8.                The application (Exhibit C-1) is on the file. As per Clause (d) of the application, it was agreed that the opposite party shall allot the space within 36 months and in case of there being failure on the part of the opposite party in doing so, the complainants were at liberty to either withdraw the amount so advanced and the opposite party was obliged to refund the amount with interest @ 12% per annum. The date of booking is 11.12.2007, an admitted fact. The project has not been completed till date despite lapse of more than eight years. The complainants in the notice Exhibit C-4 have sought refund of the amount with 18% interest.

9.                Though in the nature of assured return, the complainants have received a sum of Rs.18,51,552/-, the total payment made by the complainants is Rs.30.00 lacs and by calculating the interest @ 12% per annum from 11.12.2007, and after deducting the amount of Rs.18,51,552/-, the refundable amount comes to Rs.41,72,448/-, which has to be allowed.

10.              Thus, the opposite party would refund a sum of Rs.41,72,448/- to the complainants. It is further directed that the amount shall be refunded within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and in case of failure to refund the amount, the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the ordered amount.

11.              The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. 

 

Announced 05.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL