Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/9/2023

DINESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/9/2023
Date of Institution	:	2/1/2023
Date of Decision	:	7/8/2024

 

1. Dinesh Singh S/o Sh. Chandan Singh R/o 2010/34, Sector 32-C Chandigarh.

 

2. Pawan Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Basanti Yadav R/ #14 Block -2012 Sector 32-C, Chandigarh

 

3. Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Sarup R/o # 20 2/1 Sector 32-C Chandigarh

 

...Complainants

 

Versus

 

1. Motia Developers Private Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Chandigarh Ambala High Way Zirakpur Punjab. 140603

2. Mukul Bansal, Director Motia Developers Private Ltd., Chandigarh Ambala High Way Zirakpur Punjab. 140603

3. Ramesh Kumar Mittal, Director Motia Developers Private Ltd., Chandigarh Ambala High Way Zirakpur Punjab. 140603

4. Hem Raj Mittal Director Motia Developers Private Ltd., Chandigarh Ambala High Way Zirakpur Punjab. 140603

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arun Chandra, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainants booked one office space for earning their livelihood in the project of the OPs measuring 140.687 sq. ft. by depositing booking amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and paid another amount of Rs.2,48,360/- on 30.8.2014. The OPs issued allotment letter dated 19.9.2014 wherein the complainants were allotted office space No.2^nd Pantry on 6^th floor.  The Basic sale price of the office space was Rs.12,00,000/-. The complainants have paid a total amount of Rs.11,24,596. Buyer’s  Agreement  was executed on 19.9.2014.  As per agreement the possession of the office space in question was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of allotment/construction of project.  The OPs assured that  they have a valid license to develop  this project and the site plan is approved by the GMADA. However no documents in this regard were  shown to the complainants despite requests made. It is alleged that despite of depositing huge amount the OPs did not offer the possession to the complainant till date. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties  in their reply stated that the complainants have already been offered possession long back vide several letters Exhibit R-1/1 to R-1/6. It is alleged that the complainants have concealed the material fact from this Commission that  they vide letter dated 25.8.2018 requested  for shift of their unit from 6^th floor to 3^rd floor, which was accepted  by the Ops without additional charges  and when the unit at 3^rd floor was offerd for possession in December 2020 followed by reminders  then all of sudden in July 2021 the complainants showed their disagreement with the offering of pantry at 3^rd floor and as such the complainants are themselves not interested to retain the said unit. It is alleged that the complainants are defaulter in payment. The complainants are also liable to make payment towards holding charges as they failed to take over the possession. Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is evident from the Buyer’s Agreement Annexure
   C-10 executed between the parties on 19.9.2014  and also it is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.11,24,298/- is  deposited by the  complainant with the OPs since 2014. As per Buyer’s Agreement Annexure C-10  at page 39 under clause 4(a) it is clearly mentioned that  the possession will be handed over within 36 months. Meaning thereby the OPs were supposed to hand over the possession of the Unit in question to the complainant by 18.9.2017 but the allegations of the complainant  is that as the OPs did not come forward therefore, he sent an email Annexure C-11  dated 23.12.2022  for refund of the amount.  As per Annexure R-1/1  offer of possession was sent to the complainant on 3.12.2020 with a delay of almost 3 years. As per the OPs the complainant cannot ask for refund but should pay the remaining amount for getting the possession of the unit in question.
7. It is apparent from record that  as per agreement the Ops were bound  to hand over the possession of the unit in question by 18.9.2017 but the same was offered at a belated stage on 3.12.2020  i.e. after more than three years  whereas  the complainant has denied the said fact.
8. In our opinion the OPs have themselves  violated the terms and conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement  by not offering the  possession of the unit in question within stipulated period  despite of the fact that they have received more than 90% amount towards the sale consideration of the unit in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. In the instant case the complainant vide his separate statement dated 31.7.2024 restricted his prayer for refund of the amount.  Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited alongwith compensation and costs of litigation.  
9.  It is apparent from record that  the OPs have been using the hard earned money of the complainant  since 2014  and earning profit thereon  and did not handover possession of the unit in question within the stipulated period and as per clause 4 (a) (ii) the Ops are liable to pay delayed compensation @Rs.10/- per sq. per sq. feet per month.  Thus the Ops are liable to pay delayed compensation as per the aforesaid clause.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹11,24,298/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of deposits till onwards.
2. to pay ₹.10/- per square feet per month to the complainant w.e.f. 18.9.2017 till 3.12.2020.   
3. pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
4. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) (ii) & (iii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
7/8/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member