STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal    No  :     178 of 2015

Date of Institution  :      24.02.2015 

Date of Decision    :      17.03.2015 

1.      Sahara India Praivar, Branch Office Narnaul through Manager, Opposite Subhash Park, Singhana Road, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahindergarh (Haryana).

2.      Sahara India Praivar, North Zone Office through Manager Sahara Prime City Limited, J.M.D., Pacific Square, Ist Floor, near 32 Milestone, Sector-15, Part-2, N.H. 8, Gurgaon (Haryana).

3.      Sahara India Praivar, through ManagerSahara City Homes, Opposite Radha Swami Satsang Vyas, Village Bilwa, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4.      Sahara India Praivar through General Manager, Sahara India Sector-2, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh).

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

Smt. Manu Bala w/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, caste Ahir C/o Doctor Varit Pal Singh, Yadav Clinic, Nizampur Mandi Bus Stand, Via Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahindergarh (Haryana).

                                      Respondent-Complainant

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the Parties:  Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate for appellants.  

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal has been preferred by opposite parties against the order dated January 7^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Narnaul.

2.      Rajender Singh Nandal-complainant booked a flat with Sahara India Parivar-Opposite Parties (appellants herein), on January 31^st, 2005 by paying Rs.85,750/­- for a consideration price of Rs.17,15,000/-. He was allotted flat No.B-8/602 measuring 927.01 Square Feet, on 6^th floor vide letter dated August 21^st, 2009. Thereafter, vide letter dated February 15^th, 2010, the area of the flat was increased to 954.73 Square Feet.  Consequently, the price of the flat was increased from Rs.17,15,000/- to Rs.17,67,000/-. It was assured by the opposite parties that the possession of the flat would be handed over to the complainant by September 1^st, 2012 but they failed to do so.  

3.      The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and sought direction to the opposite parties to deliver possession without any further delay; to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation and 15% interest on the deposited amount from September 1^st, 2012 onwards.

4.      Opposite Party No.1 contested complaint. In its reply, it was stated that the complainant failed to deposit the instalments in time for which he was charged for delayed payment. The opposite parties had made slight changes in the layout plan of the unit and thus the area of the flat was increased from 927.01 Square feet to 954.73 Square Feet with consequent increase of the flat price. The delay in the construction of the flat was due to some unavoidable circumstances and the possession of the flat would be delivered to the complainant at the earliest possible.

5.      The opposite parties No.2 to 4 did not contest the complaint and they were proceeded exparte.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the opposite parties as under:-

“…..we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties. The interest be calculated w.e.f. 21.10.2012 to the date of delivery of possession of the flat in question to the complainant. We have awarded interest at the rate of 15% per annum because the opposite parties are charging the interest at the same rate of 15% on delayed payments from the allottees/consumers.”

 7.     Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties argued that that on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the appellants, they could not transfer the property and therefore, the District Forum could not have allowed interest on the deposits made by the respondent-complainant for the delay in delivery of possession.

8.      It is not in dispute that the complainant booked the flat on January 31^st, 2005 and the opposite parties have been using the amount for nearly ten years by now. Certainly the amount was being used by the appellants for commercial activities and for earning profits. Therefore, the interest allowed by the District Forum, on the deposits made, from the assured date of possession till the actual delivery, cannot be considered to be unjustified.

9.      In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal is dismissed.

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

CL