Delhi

StateCommission

CC/39/2014

ROHIT P. RANJAN & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BPTP LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

20 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 20.12.2018

Date of Decision : 10.01.2019

COMPLAINT NO.39/2014

In the matter of:

 

1. Mr. Rohit P. Ranjan,

S/o. Shri S.S Verma,

R/o. B-1273 IInd Floor,

Green Filed Colony,

Faridabad.                                                 ………Complainant no.1

 

2. Ms. Swati Singh,

Mr. Rohit P. Ranjan,

R/o. B-1273 IInd Floor,

Green Filed Colony,

Faridabad.                                                 ………Complainant no.2

 

 

Versus

1. M/s. BPTP ltd.,

M-11 Middle Circle,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.                                    ……..Opposite Party no.1

 

2. Mr. Kabul Chawala,

Chairman cum Managing Director),

M/s. BPTP Ltd.,

M-11 Middle Circle,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi-110001.                                    ……..Opposite Party no.2

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. Both the complainants are husband and wife. Complainant no.1 is a lawyer by profession. OP represented and assured that they were owners of land upon which they were going to develop project known as Park Elite Floor, Park Land Faridabad, Haryana, they had permission and approval for developing the said project. They would hand over possession within 24 months or complete payment of 35% of the basic sale price alongwith 20% of the EDC and IDC by the purchaser which is later. The complainants applied for residential flat no.LM4-38-FF having super built area of 1203, sq ft for basic sale price of Rs.22,37,003/-. They deposited Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque dated 21.05.09 with the OPs. They further deposited Rs.3,09,251/- in August, 2009 and Rs.2,51,499/- in October, 2009. Thereafter they came to know that land have not been duly allotted in the name of OPs and permission  from competent authority to develop  the project had not been granted. The complainants entered into flat buyer agreement dated 22.08.10. The Ops did not develop the property. The OPs have committed deficiency in service. The complainants made several visits to the site and were shocked to see that no actual construction work was actually in progress.
2. In May, 2010 OP again sent demand of Rs.3,40,986/- which was deposited by the complainants. They further raised demand of Rs.89,484/- as PLC which was not to be levied with the owners of the first floor and second floor. The complainants lodged protest vide letter dated 09.06.10. The OPs raised demand on 09.05.12  and 20.09.12 asking the complainants to deposit by the complainants. The OP send demand letter on 12.11.12 and 29.11.12 asking the complainants to deposit Rs.3,10,560/- and Rs.3,10,061/-. The complainants refused to do so as they had realised that OP has not completed the project in time. They asked the OPs to complete the project and hand over possession and thereafter the complainant would pay the entire amount legally due. The complainants sent detailed reply on 14.12.12 to email of the OP  dated 28.11.11 and reminder dated 06.12.12. On 20.03.13 complainant received notice and email asking them to deposit Rs.13,44,185/- by 27.03.13  failing which OP threatened to cancell the allotment. The complainant had already deposited Rs.16 lakhs approximately and so there was no question   of further asking to deposit another Rs.13 lakhs. They sent notice dated 23.05.13. As a counter blast he Op cancelled the allotment without any intimation to complainant. As per flat buyer agreement only a sum of Rs.16 lakhs approximately remained to be paid by the complainant as basic sale price and they were obliged to pay Rs1,39,000/-  towards EDC. They were ready to pay the same if the OPs are ready to hand over possession. The complainants are forced to stay in rented accommodation where they are paying rent of Rs.22,000/- per month. The OPs are liable to compensate the same. The OPs are bound to pay interest @24% per annum. Complainants have suffered mental torture and agony for which OPs are liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs. The complainants took loan from GIC. OPs are liable to compensate the complainants towards interest being paid by them to GIC on housing loan. Hence this complaint for directing the OPs to pay Rs.2,64,000/- as rent, to pay complete interest paid by complainant on housing loan, to hand over possession of the unit to the complainants by taking the actual amount due. In the alternative to refund the amount deposited by the complainants alongwith interest @24% per annum and pay Rs5 lakhs each to the complainants towards loss, mental torture and agony, Rs.55,000/- towards litigation charges
3. The OPs filed the WS raising preliminary objections that OP-2 is neither necessary nor proper party, the complainants blatantly flouted material terms of making timely payments of various  instalments despite demands   and reminders, Final notice dated 20.03.13 giving last and final opportunity to pay Rs.13,44,185/- in not later than  7 days. The complainants failed to pay the same and booking stood terminate. Complainants were left with no right or lien or interest in the booking. The complainants failed to mention that cheque for Rs,2,58,530/- was dishonoured, there was delay of almost one year in submission of documents required for execution of flat buyer agreement. The amount deposited by complainant was forfeited as per  terms of flat buyer agreement. On merits the OP pleaded that as per clause 1.5 ( c) of flat buyer agreement, PLC was chargeable @5% of the basic sale price for units located over looking the park, units on corner flats and floor on roads over 12 meters but up to 18 meter width . Unit of the complainant was of a corner and had a 15 meter road running adjacent to it. The protest lodged by complainant was answered vide letter dated 11.06.10. The complainant had paid Rs.15,59,628/- when infact total amount called for as on date of termination was Rs.29,03,813/-. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and affidavit of both complainants in evidence.
5. On the other hand the OP filed affidavit of Shri Inderjit, AR. Both the parties have filed written arguments. I have gone through the material on record and heard the oral arguments. Booking by the complainant, deposit of the amount by the complainant is not in dispute. Both the parties are blaming each other for breach of agreement. Booking was done in 2009 and now we are in 2019. Still the OPs have not offered possession of the flat. Rather they have cancelled the booking of the complainant and tried to justify forfeiture of the entire amount deposited by the complainants. That is not permissible. Had the OPs completed the project within time, they could have forfeited earnest money amounting to 10% of the sale price and not the entire amount. In the instant case even that is not permissible because OPs are guilty of not fulfilling their obligation to deliver the possession within 24 months.
6. Thus the question remains as to what amount the complainants are entitled. The complainants have relied upon decision of National Commission in Anshu Srivastava vs, Unitech IV (2016) CPJ 462 in which the OP was directed to refund the entire amount with interest @12% per annum. They also relied upon decision of National Commission in Inder Dhawan vs. Unitech 2018 SCC online NCDRC 43 in which the OP was directed to refund the amount with interest @10% per annum. Reliance has also been placed on decision of National Commission in CC No.860/18 titled as Pallak Seth vs. Unitech Hightech Developers Ltd decided on 10.10.18. In that case also the OP was directed to refund the amount with interest @10% per annum.
7. Applying the case law filed by the complainants, OP is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants with interest @10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of refund. The complainant can not claim rent paid by them for the accommodation in which they are residing, in addition to interest.  
8. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

9. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                          MEMBER (JUDICIAL)