Haryana

Sonipat

CC/65/2015

PUSHPA DAHRA W/O SH. DAYA NAND DAHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CMD PARDESHI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHABIR TYAGI

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.65 of 2015

                             Instituted on:04.03.2015

                             Date of order:18.11.2015

 

Pushpa Dahra wife of late Sh. Daya Nand Dahra, r/o H.No.12/521, Batra Colony, Rishi Nagar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

M/s CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office 801, Crown Height, Sector 10, Rohini, Delhi-85, through its Directors/Managing Director.

                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mahavir Tyagi, Advocate for Complainant.

           Sh. Ved Parkash Sachdeva AR for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that in January, 2006 she booked a two bedroom flat in housing project of the respondent at village Rasoi, Sonepat known as Ushay Towers and she was allotted flat no.304, 3^rd floor, Tower Cherry. The complainant has paid the huge amount to the respondent from time to time.  The respondent has sent incorrect payment schedule/demand letter time and again to the complainant and has failed to hand over the physical possession of the flat within a reasonable time and this act & conduct of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the son of the complainant is an Advocate and he used to file false complaint one after the another. The sanction building plan has been extended/revalidated till 7/2018 by the Director Town and Country Planner.  There is no delay in handing over the physical possession to the complainant. The money deposited by the complainant has been spent on the flat of the complainant.  The construction of the flat is almost complete and finishing work is going on in the flat. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.        The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the respondent has sent incorrect payment schedule/demand letter time and again to the complainant and has failed to hand over the physical possession of the flat within a reasonable time and this act & conduct of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

          On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the sanction building plan has been extended/revalidated till 7/2018 by the Director Town and Country Planner.  There is no delay in handing over the physical possession to the complainant. The money deposited by the complainant has been spent on the flat of the complainant.  The construction of the flat is almost complete and finishing work is going on in the flat. So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief and compensation.

 

          We have perused the prayer clause of the complainant’s complaint vide which the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondent to compensate her to the tune of Rs.15 lacs for physical harassment, financial loss and on account of deficient services and further to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant.  As per Ex.C1, compromise has been effected in between the complainant and the respondent on 24.12.2010.

 

          From the contents of the complainant’s complaint, it is gathered that the complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that the respondent has sent incorrect payment schedule/demand letter and has further failed to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant.

          We have perused the document Ex.C1 i.e. compromise effected in between the complainant and the respondent.  Vide this compromise, the respondent waived off the amount of PLC, covered car parking and club membership fees. So, in this way, somehow the respondent has co-operated the complainant.

          In the present complaint, the complainant by way of present complaint has claimed the relief to direct the respondent to pay Rs.15 lacs i.e. Rs.5 lac for harassment, Rs.5 lac for financial loss and Rs.5 lc for deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- under litigation expenses and further to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant.

 

          As far as the financial loss as alleged by the complainant is concerned, the complainant has not led any evidence in support of her claim.  No rent agreement to prove that the complainant is paying monthly rent to the land lord, has been placed on record.  No rent receipt has been placed on record by the complainant. So, in our view, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim under the head of financial loss.

          However, as far as the deficiency in service, harassment and non-delivery of physical possession of the flat is concerned, we find force in these claim of the complainant and thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) to complainant for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondent is further directed to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the respondent shall pay 09% per annum interest to the complainant on the net deposited amount from the date of passing of this order till handing over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced: 18.11.2015.