Haryana

StateCommission

A/563/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEGHA JOON - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      563 of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.07.2015

Date of Decision :      30.03.2016

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited, A Company Incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (through its authorised signatory Mr. Madan Dogra, D.G.M.)

Also at

 

Parsvnath City Sector-8, G.T. Road, Sonipat, Haryana.

 

Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Megha Joon d/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Resident of House No.540, Sector-14, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:               Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Party (for short ‘the builder) is in appeal against the order dated April 15^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.275 of 2014.

2.      Megha Joon-complainant, booked a residential plot admeasuring 400 square yards, with the builder, vide application dated February 12^th, 2005 (Annexure A-3). The basic price of the flat was Rs.23,00,000/- besides Preferential Location Charges (PLC) and External Development Charges ( ‘EDC’). The amount was to be paid in instalments. The complainant paid Rs.11,50,000/-, that is, Rs.5,75,000/- at the time of filing application (Annexure A-3) and Rs.5,75,000/- on 22^nd March, 2006. The builder did not allot the plot inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The builder in its reply pleaded that plot could not be allotted to the complainant due to recession in the prices of immovable properties.

4.      The District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint and directed the builder as under:-

“……..we hereby direct the respondents to allot the plot to the complainant and to receive their balance amount, if any, from the complainant. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.”

5.      Indisputably, the complainant had booked the plot with the builder on February 12^th, 2005 vide application (Annexure A-3). The basic price of the plot was Rs.23.00 lacs. She paid Rs.11,50,000/- to the builder. As per Clause (a) of the application (Annexure A-3), the plot was to be allotted within six months from the date of application. Clause (a) is reproduced as under:-

“(a)    That you offer me/us a residential plot which you may promote in the near future within a period of six months.”

 6.     What to talk of the allotment of the plot within the stipulated period of six months, the same has not been allotted till date.  The builder has not been able to show any justifiable reason for this. The plea of the builder that the plot could not be allotted due to recession in the prices of immovable properties, is not tenable because after the booking of the plot, the other projects were launched by the builder. It is material to mention that after booking of the plot in question, the prices of immovable have increased extensively and due to that reason the builder did not want to give plot to the complainant at the price which prevailed in the year 2005.  The act of the builder exhibits a clever device to earn profits by selling the plot of complainant to some other person at higher rate.

7.      In this view of the matter, the order passed by the District Forum requires no interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

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

 

Announced 30.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL