Haryana

StateCommission

A/519/2015

BHOOMI INFRASTRUCTURE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHESH DWIVEDI - Opp.Party(s)

YASHPAL SINGH

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      519 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.06.2015

Date of Decision :       28.08.2015

 

1.     M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company having its Registered Office at Gold City, Plot No.11, Sector 19-D, Vashi, Navi Mumabi-400705 through its Managing Director/Director Mr. S.S. Deswal.

 

2.     M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company, Sector-30, Panchkula through its Partner-Director, S.S. Deswal s/o Sh. Ishwar Singh Deswal, Resident of H.No.1411, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Mahesh Dwivedi s/o Sh. S.R. Dwivedi

2.      Pushpa Dwivedi wife of late S.R. Dwivedi

          Both Residents of House No.145, Sector 18-A, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Yash Pal Singh, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 1^st May, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula.

2.      Mahesh Dwivedi and his mother Pushpa Dwivedi-complainants-respondents, booked a flat with  M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company-appellants-opposite parties on January 13^th, 2010 for a consideration price of Rs.33,46,250/-.   They paid Rs.8,60,250/- to the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued a provisional allotment letter (Annexure C-2) whereby they allotted Flat No.C-1/106 at Ist Floor, Type (C) (1100 sq ft) in “Amazon-The Defence County”.  The possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months after completing the same in all respects. However, the opposite parties did not complete the construction of the flat and therefore, the question of delivering possession of the same to the complainant and other buyers did not arise. Alleging it deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed complaint seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum interest, compensation of Rs.1.00 lac for unfair trade practice, Rs.1.00 lac towards damages and mental agony/harassment and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

  3.    Notice being issued, the opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded exparte. Though, the Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel Shri Yash Pal Singh, Advocate but did not file reply despite availing ample opportunities and therefore its defence was struck of.

4.      After evaluating the evidence of the complainants, the District Forum accepted complaint issuing direction to the opposite parties as under:-

“(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.8,60,250/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till realization.

(ii)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service.

(iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.”

5.      It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties that there is a privity of contract between the parties and both are bound by the terms and conditions of the flat buyer agreement which has been duly signed by them. Since, the complainants did not pay further amount of the flat in question, they cannot ask for delivery of possession. Learned counsel further contends the project would be completed by January 11^th, 2016 as the construction work was going on and therefore the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. One of the opposite parties did not appear despite service and the opposite party No.2 did not file reply despite availing opportunities. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the project has not been completed within the stipulated time of three years. The flat was booked on 13.01.2010. The possession was to be delivered upto 13.01.2013. Till date, more than five years and eight months have expired but still the project is not complete. The opposite parties-appellants have themselves committed breach of terms and conditions of agreement, therefore, they cannot derive any benefit out of the same. The act and conduct of the opposite parties does not entitle them to get any relief by filing the instant appeal. The opposite parties could have raised plea before the District Forum by filing reply but they played clever device to prolong the litigation.

 7.     In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 28.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL