Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/374/2016

Anupama - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DLf Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gorav Kathuria, Diwan Adlakha, Adv.

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint	:	374 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Anupama W/o Sh. Ashwini Kumar D/o Surender Singh Narwal, Resident of House No.11, Minar Road, Karnal.

 

                                            .........Complainant

                                 Versus

 

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.
2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	356 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	15.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Anil Kumar son of Sh. Raj Singh, resident of Village Kakana Bhadri, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, Haryana.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

..........Opposite party.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for the Opposite Party.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	375 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Vinay Narwal son of Sh. Surinder Singh Narwal, resident of House No.11, Minar Road, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.

 

2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	376 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Sheela Devi W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Resident of House No.5, Market Committee Campus, Rani Talab, Jind.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.

 

2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	377 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Geeta Narwal wife of Vinay Narwal son of Sh. Surinder Singh Narwal, resident of House No.11, Minar Road, Karnal, District Karnal.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.

 

2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	378 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Jorbal Singh Kajal S/o Sh. Sahib Singh Resident of Thakur Nikka Ram Building, Totu Chowk, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.

 

2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	379 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	02.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

Ram Chander Sharma S/o Sh. Devi Ram Resident of Village Kherimasania, P.O. Uchana Mandir, District Jind, Haryana.

 

                                            .........Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at SCO No.190-192, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Haryana through its Sales Manager.

 

2. M/s DLF Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon – 122002 through its Directors.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate  for  the complainant.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	408 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	28.07.2016
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2016

 

1. Jugwant Singh Malik son of Sh. Attar Singh Malik, resident of H.No.407, Shakti Appartments, Sector-14, Panchkula.
2. Sunita wife of Jugwant Singh Malik, resident of H.No.407, Shakti Appartments, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                            .........Complainants.

Versus

1. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.190-191-192, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, U.T., Pin-160009, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

 

2. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorised Signatory/ Officer-in-Charge/Director Sales and Marketing.

 

..........Opposite Parties.

Argued by:

 

Sh. Gopal Sharma, Advocate  for  the complainants.

Ms. Ekta Jhanji, Sh. Parveen Jain and Sh. Arjun Sharma, Advocates for Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

              

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

             By this order, we propose to dispose of, following eight consumer complaints:-

1	CC/356/2016	Anil Kumar	Vs	DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.
2	CC/374/2016	Anupama	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
3	CC/375/2016	Vinay Narwal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.
4	CC/376/2016	Sheela Devi	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
5	CC/377/2016	Geeta Narwal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
6	CC/378/2016	Jorbal Singh Kajal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
7	CC/379/2016	Ram Chander Sharma	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
8	CC/408/2016	Jugwant Singh Malik & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

2.          At the time of arguments, on 26.10.2016, it was agreed between Counsel for the parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are virtually the same, and therefore, these eight complaints can be disposed of, by passing one consolidated order.

3.          Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing No.374 of 2016, titled as ‘Anupama Vs. M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited and another.’

4.          In fact, Independent Floor No.DVF-E5/18-SF in DLF Valley, Panchkula, was initially allotted to one Surender Singh Narwal vide allotment letter dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure C-1) and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between him and the Opposite Parties on 14.01.2011 at Chandigarh. Sh. Surender Singh Narwal made the following payments to the Opposite Parties, as per receipts (Annexure C-6 Colly.) placed on record by the complainant:-

 

Receipt Dated	Amount (Rs.)
13.03.2010	4,00,000.00
12.05.2010	2,00,376.00
12.07.2010	3,00,383.00
17.09.2010	3,75,140.00
30.09.2010	6,999.36
03.11.2011	8,599.85
06.01.2012	3,41,403.00
02.02.2012	3,07,024.00
13.03.2012	24,722.00
18.03.2012	3,00,595.00
19.04.2013	3,07,869.00

 

             The original allottee was given the following early payment rebate:-

 

20.12.2011	42,493.00
06.01.2012	1,139.00
02.02.2012	1,024.00
18.03.2012	1,536.00
Total:	46,192.00

           

             The said unit was subsequently transferred in the name of the complainant on 06.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant made the following payments to the Opposite Parties:-

 

Receipt Dated	Amount (Rs.)
20.12.2013	41,400.00
12.09.2016	3,57,959.32

 

 

            Thus, in all, an amount of Rs.30,18,662.53 was paid by the original allottee or the complainant to the Opposite Parties.

5.          In all, the complainant paid almost 95% of the total sale value of the unit, in question.  As per Customer Ledger (Annexure C-3), she paid Rs.30,21,904.53 to the Opposite Parties, whereas, as stated above,  as per receipts placed on record by the complainant, vide Miscellaneous Application No.410 of 2016, in all, an amount of Rs.30,18,662.53 (i.e. Rs.29,72,470.53.00 + Rs.46,192.00 given as early payment rebate) was paid to the Opposite Parties.

6.          It was further stated that despite paying about 95% amount of the total sale consideration of the flat, the basic amenities have not been provided by the Opposite Parties at the site till date and more than one and half year has lapsed from issuance of the completion certificate. It was further stated that there is no facility of road, water supply, electricity supply, street lights and fencing of outer boundary of the project. It was further stated that the complainant has been waiting for her dream house since last four years and has been left in lurch without there being any fault of her. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties unilaterally changed the layout plan of the allotted plot and also changed the room size, without any justification and, thus, lowered the utility of the end user and put them to pay the additional money as a result of the said unilateral increase in the balcony and shortened the rooms size. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the amount under protest and paid all the installments as per the Schedule of Payment.

7.          It was further stated that there is no development at the site and the independent floor allotted to the complainant is not complete in all respects as the construction activity is still going on and even there is no boundary wall of the area where the said floor is situated. It was further stated that the Malba and other raw material are still lying at the site. It was further stated that no prudent man could be asked to live in such a condition as the mere construction of four walls does not, in any manner, fulfills the obligation on the part of the Opposite Parties to develop the area, for which, hefty sum has been charged from the buyers.

8.          It was further stated that the Opposite Parties informed that possession would he handed over within two-three months or by the month of December 2012 but nothing of that kind was done. It was further stated that due to delay in handing over the flat to the complainant, she is suffering monetary loss as she has been forced to live on rent against monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-.

9.          It was further stated that since the Opposite Parties have failed to give satisfactory reply in handing over possession of the floor within the stipulated period of two years from the date of allotment, therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the losses suffered by her. It was further stated that the complainant served legal notice 28.05.2016 (Annexure C-5) upon the Opposite Parties but to no avail.

10.        Alleging deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short 1986 Act) seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to hand over the physical and legal possession of unit, in question, complete in all respects after getting necessary clearance of the project from the Government Authorities; pay penal interest of Rs.31,58,066.50 calculated @24% per annum on the deposited amount; pay Rs.6,12,000/- as rent paid by the complainant from January 2013 onwards @Rs.15,000/- per month; award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss suffered due to unethical and unfair trade practice, harassment, mental agony and abuse of dominant position; and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses; and grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11.        The Opposite Parties, in their preliminary submissions in the written statement submitted that the occupation certificate from the competent authority has already been received by them on 05.04.2016 (Annexure-R/1) and the offer of possession of the floor, in question, was under process. It was further stated that the complainant purchased the floor, in question, from the first allottee, namely, Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, on 06.05.2013 and not from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant was at default of not making timely payments and delayed the installment(s) of payments for more than 312 days. It was further stated that the complainant had full knowledge about the executed terms of the Agreement dated 14.01.2011. It was further stated that out of 1791 floors, occupation certificate(s) of 1320 units had already been received and offer of possession to the allottees has already been started. It was further stated that proper water connection and electricity supply was in place and full housekeeping and maintenance services were being provided through leading multinational company namely Jones Lang Lasalle. It was further stated that 31% cost escalation of the construction as well 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price of the allotted floor be allowed. It was further stated that the project was cost escalation free as the complainant shall get the possession of the floor on the same price as committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of allotment of flat in 24^th February, 2010. It was further stated that construction of the project got delayed due to stay on construction activity by the High Court and thereafter by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India due to third party litigation involving acquisition proceedings of land of litigants therein, in the years 2010 and 2012. It was further stated that after dismissal of litigation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.2012, the Opposite Parties gave an exit option vide letter dated 02.04.2013 (at Page 184 of the written statement) to Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, the original allottee, for refunding   the  amount  alongwith  9%  interest  but  he opted to continue with the project and consented for extension.

12.        In the preliminary objections, it was stated that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and the complainant filed this complaint to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to consider the complaint and pass orders on the relief claimed. The other preliminary objections raised are that the complainant is not a consumer as the floor, in question, was booked, not for personal use but for investment purposes and earning profits and Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for delay caused due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that SLP No.21786-88/2010 was filed, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court stayed the construction activities at the project vide order dated 19.04.2012, which was vacated on 12.12.2012 only. It was further stated that after the vacation of stay, the construction work again resumed and, therefore, delay in handing over possession was due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sought approval regarding revision in layout plan and service plans on 11.3.2013 and 20.05.2013, which was received on 06.09.2013 and 14.08.2014 respectively. It was further stated that the original allottee or the subsequent purchaser i.e. the complainant waived off their right by not opting for exit policy. It was further stated that the project is at the verge of completion and the complainant shall get the offer of possession of flat very soon.

13.        Under the caption “FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT”, On merits, it was stated that the flat, in question, was initially booked by the father of the complainant through application for allotment dated 24.02.2010 and Rs.4 Lacs was paid as the earnest money. The complainant’s father entered into the Buyer’s Agreement with the Opposite Parties on 14.01.2011. It was further stated that the price of the above said unit was Rs.30,73,999.75 plus other taxes as applicable. It was further stated that the property got transferred in the name of the complainant on 08.05.2013. It was further stated that the complainant has not deposited the total sale price to the Opposite Party and there is a DLI of Rs.11,397.22 levied against the account of the complainant on account of delay of 312 days. On merits, it was further stated that possession was to be offered within 24 months (2 years) as stipulated in the Agreement unless there was delay due to a force majeure condition or due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) of the Agreement. It was further stated that as per Clause 43 of the Agreement, the Opposite Parties were not liable or responsible for not performing any of their obligation or undertakings as provided in the Agreement, if such performance is prevented due to force majeure conditions. It was further stated that delivery of possession of the unit, in question, was delayed on account of force majeure conditions, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

14.        The complainant filed replication, wherein, she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated the same, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.

15.        The complainant, in support of her case, submitted her affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.

16.        The Opposite Parties, in support of their case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar, , their Authorised Signatory, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 

17.        We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

18.        It is evident, on record, that Independent Floor No.DVF-E5/18-SF in DLF Valley, Pachkula, was initially allotted to one Surender Singh Narwal vide allotment letter dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure C-1) and Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was also executed between him and the Opposite Parties on 14.01.2011 at Chandigarh. The said unit was subsequently transferred in the name of the complainant on 06.05.2013. As per the Agreement, the total price of the unit, in question, was Rs.30,01,499.75 i.e. Basic Sale Price Rs.24,94,724.97 + External Development Charges of Rs.2,96,669.92 + Rs.2,10,104.86 as interest on above components. In addition to the total price and other charges mentioned in the Application/Agreement, Annexure-III to the Agreement, charges as mentioned in Clause 1.4 of the Agreement i.e. Membership Fee Rs.30,000/- for five years, Rs.6,000/- per annum as Annual Club Charges and Rs.20,000/- as refundable security deposit and charges/taxes as per Clause 1.11, 1.12 and 1.15 etc., were payable. Further, as per Clause 11(a), the Opposite Parties were to complete the construction of the said independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the said Agreement. There was stay on construction activities by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India from 19.04.2012 to 12.12.2012, on account of which, the Opposite Parties sought extension of time for one year

 

vide letter dated 02.04.2013, to which, Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, the initial allottee and the complainant, being the subsequent purchaser,  agreed. The option to get refund was not exercised by the complainant. While seeking option vide letter dated 02.04.2013, the complainant was informed of delay and extension of one year was sought. One year extended period expired on 13.01.2014 and still the possession has not been offered.   

19.        The Opposite Parties in preliminary submissions have prayed to allow them 31% cost escalation of construction as well as 47% of the land holding cost, totaling 76% of the sale price. There is a clear and specific stipulation in Clause 1.2 of the Agreement that price of the unit is escalation free. The Opposite Parties failed to complete construction and deliver possession within stipulated period and extended one year period. They are themselves responsible for delay and deficiency in service and their prayer for allowing them escalation cost is not only unfair but it also amounts to seeking amendment of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. The plea, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

20.        It has been categorically stated by the Opposite Parties in Para 7 on merits in their written statement that construction of the project is of utmost superior level and they have hired the services of professionals and national level companies to complete the project and all the facilities, amenities are available at the site.

21.        Since the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties on 14.01.2011 and period stipulated therein for handing over possession was to commence from the date of execution of the same (Agreement), the averment of the Opposite Parties that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had restrained the Opposite Parties from creating any third party rights, during the year 2010, is not relevant.

22.        An objection was raised by Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the complainant filed this complaint leveling baseless allegations of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc. with an ulterior motive, to amend/modify/rewrite the concluded Agreement duly executed between the parties, purely to invoke jurisdiction of this Commission. It was further stated that the complainant was virtually inviting this Commission to assume powers conferred under the Civil Court and, therefore, this Commission did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It may be stated here, that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties, for purchasing the unit, in question, in the manner, referred to above. According to Clause 11 of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were to hand over possession of the unit, in question, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). Section 2 (1) (o) of 1986 Act, defines ‘service’ as under:-

“service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both,  housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”

 

23.        From the afore-extracted Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act, it is evident that housing/construction, also comes within the definition of a service. In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union Of India and  Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer, or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of 1986 Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766). Under these circumstances, the complaint involves the consumer dispute, and the same is maintainable. Not only this, Section 3 of the Act, provides an alternative remedy. Even if, it is assumed that the complainant has remedy to file a suit in the Civil Court, the alternative remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, can be availed of by her, as she falls within the definition of a consumer, as stated above. In the instant case, the complainant is seeking relief on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Opposite Parties and their deficiency in rendering service. It, therefore, cannot be said that the complainant is trying to rewrite/modify the terms of the agreement. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable.

24.        To defeat claim of the complainant, the next objection raised by the Opposite Parties was that since the complainant had purchased the flat, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there was escalation in the prices of real estate, as such, she would not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. It may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show, that the complainant is a property dealer, and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the Opposite Parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. The complainant, who is a subsequent purchaser, is seeking possession, which means that she purchased the same for her residence. Otherwise also, in a case titled as  Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (1) CPJ 31, it was held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that the buyer(s) of the  residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. The principle of law, laid down, in Kavita Ahuja’s case (supra) is fully applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the unit, in question, was purchased by the complainant, by way of investment, with a view to earn profit, in future. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs.  Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as “Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited”, Consumer Case No.70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep. 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

“In the case of the purchase of the house which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. First Appeal No.1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

 

The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  

25.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there is delay in offering/delivering possession of the flat, in question. Clauses 11(a) & 11(b) of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 14.01.2011, reads thus:-

“11(a) Schedule for possession of the said Independent Floor:-

The Company based on its present plans and estimates and subject to all just exceptions, endeavors to complete construction of the said Independent  Floor  within  a period of twenty four (24) months from the date of execution of the Agreement unless there shall be delay or failure due to Force majeure conditions and due to reasons mentioned in Clause 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of Allottee to pay in time the Total Price and other charges, taxes, deposits, securities etc and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11(b) Delay due to reasons beyond the control of the company:-

If the possession of the Said Independent Floor is delayed due to Force Majeure conditions, then the company shall be entitled to extension of time for delivery of possession of the said Independent Floor. The company during the continuance of the Force Majeure reserves the right to alter or vary the terms and conditions of the agreement or if the circumstances so warrant, the company may also suspend the development for such period as is considered expedient and the allottee shall have no right to raise any claim compensation of any nature whatsoever for or with regard to such suspension.”

As stated above, according to Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, subject to force majeure conditions and reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Parties, they were liable to deliver physical possession of unit, within a period of 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). In the event of failure to deliver possession, as per Clause 15 of the Agreement, the complainant was entitled to get penal compensation @Rs.10/- per square feet, per month, of the saleable area, for the period of delay. It is true that in some litigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stayed construction at the project site and order passed remained in force from 19.04.2012 up-to 12.12.2012 i.e. for about 8 months. It is also an admitted fact, that by making reference to above fact of granting stay, which resulted into  delay in construction at the site, consent of the original allottee, namely, Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, was sought, vide letter dated 02.04.2013, to complete construction within further 12 months. Option was also given to him, to seek refund of the deposited amount, alongwith simple interest @9% P.A. However, he exercised former option and continued to make payment(s) thereafter and by the time, the complaint was filed, an amount of Rs.30,18,662.93 had been paid to the Opposite Parties. Reading of written statement makes it very clear, that still no firm date to hand over possession of the unit has been given. Taking into account 12 months extension, the Opposite Parties were required to deliver possession on or before 13.01.2014, but not later than that. Permission for occupation of the unit, in question, has been accorded to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure - R/1). Admittedly, possession of the unit, in question, was neither offered by the date of filing the instant complaint nor till date, despite payment of around 95% of the sale consideration by the complainant. By making a misleading statement, that possession of the unit, was to be delivered within  maximum period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and within further extended period of 12 months i.e. latest by 13.01.2014, and by not abiding by the commitment, made by the Opposite Parties, they were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. The argument of the Opposite Parties that delay in handing over possession of independent floor was attributable due to delay in receiving statutory approvals from the competent  authorities,  the  same  being    absolutely beyond their control, is not tenable.  The Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 14.01.2011 and before execution thereof, the Opposite Parties ought to have obtained all the approvals. If permissions/approvals for revision in layout plans and service plans were sought on 11.03.2013 and 20.05.2013, approvals for which were also received in due course of time, the initial time taken (almost 2 years) for seeking such approvals amounts to clear deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and in the absence of any justified reason for not doing so earlier, time consumed in obtaining such approvals would not amount to force majeure condition. The plea taken, therefore, is of no help to the Opposite Parties. Clearly, there is inordinate delay of around three years beyond initial stipulated period of two years and one year extended period in offering possession of the unit, in question to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to possession of the unit. Delay in offering possession to the complainant is an act of clear deficiency of the Opposite Parties.

26.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, if so, at what rate, for non-delivery of physical possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period of 24 months and extended period of 12 months on account of force majeure conditions. As stated above, in the instant case, the Opposite Parties have not delivered possession within 24 months as stipulated in Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement and thereafter within extended period of 12 months, from execution of the Agreement on 14.01.2011 i.e. by 13.01.2014. No  doubt,   in   the  Buyer’s    Agreement,   some  scope   for delay due to unavoidable circumstances was kept in mind, for compensating  the  complainant for  delay,  but it does not mean that the intention was that even in the event of inordinate delay, in completing the construction and delivering the possession, the complainant would be entitled to meagre compensation of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. per month, which is much less than the bank rate for loan or fixed deposit. Therefore, in our considered view, Clauses 11(a) and 15 were meant for computing compensation, in case of a minor delay in delivery of possession.  If the argument of the Opposite Parties is to be accepted, it would lead to an absurd situation and would give an unfair advantage to the unscrupulous builder, who might utilize the consideration amount meant to finance the project, by the buyer for its other business venture, at nominal interest of 3 to 4 percent, as against much higher bank lending rates. This could never be the intention of legislation that if such a proposition is accepted, it would result in defeating the object of Consumer Protection Act.

27.        Recently in Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-

 

“8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated  in  the  Buyers  Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.

9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx

10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:

(1)         xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.

(3)   No separate compensation would be payable to the complainants either towards the rent if any paid by them or for the mental agony and harassment which they have suffered on account of the failure of the opposite party to perform its contractual obligation.”

28.        Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case, referred to above, and position stated above, grant of compensation in the form of simple interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, would meet the ends of justice. The complainant purchased the unit, in question, on 06.5.2013. She is seeking compensation on account of rent @Rs.15,000/- per month  w.e.f. 1.1.2013. At the time of purchasing the unit on 06.5.2013, complainant was aware of progress and stage of construction. Her claim to this effect is, therefore, not justified. With grant of 12% interest for delayed period, complainant has been adequately compensated.

29.         The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to compensation, under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, on account  of mental agony and physical harassment, and injury caused to her, for inordinate delay in delivering physical possession of the unit to her, by the Opposite Parties, by the promised date in the Agreement or latest by 13.01.2014 i.e. within the extended period. The complainant purchased the unit, with the hope that she will have a house to live in. The possession of unit, in question, has not been offered to the complainant, till date, what to speak of delivery thereof. The compensation in the sum of Rs.10 Lacs claimed by the complainant is on the higher side. The complainant has been adequately compensated by granting 12% interest for the delay period. The price of the unit, in question, is escalation free. The complainant shall also get the benefit of escalation in price of the unit. Under these circumstances, compensation, on account of mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to the acts of omission and     commission of the Opposite Parties, if granted, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be reasonable, adequate and fair. The complainant, is, thus, held entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.

30.        As regards allegation raised by the complainant that the Opposite Parties unilaterally changed the layout plan of the allotted unit and also changed the room size, without any justification and thus, lowered the utility of the end user, it may be stated here that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, from its original allottee, namely Sh. Surender Singh Narwal, who never agitated this issue to the Opposite Parties uptil 06.05.2013, on which date the unit, in question, was transferred in favour of the complainant, whereas the fact is that the unit, was allotted to him on 15.03.2010 and Agreement between him (original allottee) and the Opposite Parties was executed on 14.01.2011. Thus, raising   such an objection, at this belated stage by the complainant, is an afterthought.

31.        Details of date of execution of Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement(s); whether complainant(s) are original allottees; due date for possession after one year extended period and date of receiving Occupation Certificate; in respect of connected complaint cases No.375/2016, 376/2016, 377/2016, 378/2016 and 408/2016, are given hereunder:-

TABLE - A

 

1	2	3	4	5	6
Sr. No.	Complaint Case No.	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	Whether original allottee?	Due date for possession after one year extended period	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)
1.	375/2016	31.12.2010	2nd Allottee (23.02.2012)	30.12.2013	13.01.2016
2.	376/2016	24.01.2011	2nd Allottee (23.02.2012)	23.01.2014	05.04.2016
3.	377/2016	13.12.2010	2nd Allottee (03.05.2013)	12.12.2013	05.04.2016
4.	378/2016	17.01.2011	Yes	16.01.2014	19.07.2016
5.	408/2016	06.01.2011	Yes	05.01.2014	Not received

 

32.        In Consumer Complaint No.408 of 2016, it is averred by the complainants that till date, they have not been given the benefit of 5% discount by the Opposite Parties and, as such, they are not liable to pay the amount of Rs.2,22,289.19. The Opposite Parties in Para 4, at Page 31 of their written statement, have stated that an amount of Rs.2,22,289.19 is still pending towards the complainants. They have also stated that discount, if any, shall be given at the time of giving final statement of accounts to the complainants.

33.        The occupation certificates of the unit(s), in question, have been obtained by the Opposite Parties in complaints bearing Nos.375/2016, 376/2016, 377/2016 and 378/2016, on 13.01.2016, 05.04.2016, 05.04.2016 and 19.07.2016 respectively, except Complaint No.408/2016, wherein the same has been applied but yet not received. However, possession of the unit(s), in question, has not been offered/delivered in these cases. Therefore, in view of the observations made in the preceding paras, the complainant(s), in these five cases, are also entitled to possession of the unit(s), in question, complete in all respects on payment of amount due, and 12% interest for the delayed period beyond three years till possession is handed over. In each of these five complaints, the complainant(s) are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment. Besides above, the complainant(s) are also held entitled to litigation cost to the tune of Rs.35,000/- in each of the above complaints.

34.        In one complaint bearing No.379 of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table-B below, possession of the unit has been offered by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure C-3):-

 

TABLE – B

Sr. No.	Description
1	Date of independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement.	17.02.2011
2	Due date for possession after one year extended period	16.02.2014
3	Date on which possession offered	14.01.2016 (Annexure C-3)
4	Details of demand raised	Rs.12,68,461.00 inclusive of Rs.4,02,000/- on account of increase in area; Rs.2,64,228/- as Stamp Duty & Registration Charges;Rs.87,550/- as IFMS & Rs.25,477/- on account of Contingent Deposit of Vat.
5	Date of receiving Occupation Certificate. (Annexure R-1)	10.07.2015
6	DLI	20,145.06

 

              In this case, the Opposite Parties while offering possession of the unit(s), in question, also raised demand as indicated above.

35.        As regards demand in the sum of Rs.4,02,000/- on account of change/increase in area etc., it is stated by the complainant that the demand raised on this account was illegal, null and void. It may be stated here that at Page 2 of the possession letter, it has been mentioned as under:-

“1. PROPERTY DETAILS

Kindly Note that post compounding, the final area of the plot is 1751.00 sq. ft. (162.59 sq. mt.) which is an increase/decrease in area of 201.00 sq. ft./(18.66 sq. mt.) and the differential cost payable by you/refundable to you as the case may be. Any increase/decrease in area is necessitated to improve upon the original tentative plan of the super area and is covered under Clause no.10 of the Independent Floor Agreement. Any increase/decrease in PLC (Preferential Location Charges) is charged as per Clause 1.10 of the agreement.” 

 

36.        The Counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that there was specific provision to this effect in the Agreement and the complainant(s) was backing out from the executed contract. It may be stated here that as per Agreement executed between the parties saleable area was 1550 sq. ft., which as per letter offering possession stood revised to 1751 sq. ft., meaning thereby that there was increase of 201 sq. ft. in the saleable area. Clause 10 of the Agreement deals with ‘Alteration/ modification’ in the area. The said Clause reads thus:-

“In case of any alteration/modification including as mentioned in the clause above, resulting in increase/decrease of more than 15% in the Saleable Area of the Said Independent Floor or material/substantial change in the sole opinion of and as determined by the Company, in the specification of the material to be used in the Said Independent Floor, any time prior to the grant of occupation certificate, the Company shall intimate in writing to the Allottee the proposed changes thereof and the resultant change, if any, in the Total Price of the Said Independent Floor to be paid by the Allottee. The Allottee agrees to deliver to the Company any objections to the changes within thirty (30) days from the date of notice of the changes. In case the Company does not receive any written objection from the Allottee within thirty (30) days of the dispatch of notice of changes then the Allottee shall be deemed to have given unconditional consent to all such alterations/modifications and for payments/refunds, if any to be paid/refunded in consequence thereof. If the Company receives the objections in writing within the stipulated time from the Allottee of the proposed changes then the Company may either decide not to go ahead with the proposed changes or may decide to cancel this Agreement without further notice and refund the entire money received form the Allottee with interest @10% per annum within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of objections from the Allottee by the Company. In case the Company decides to cancel the Agreement, the Company shall be released and discharged from all its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement and the Allottee shall have no right, interest or claim of any nature whatsoever on the Said Independent Floor and the Company shall be free to resale or deal with the Said Independent Floor and the Parking Space(s) in any manner whatsoever. The Company shall have no other liability except to refund the amount as stated above.”

 

37.        The increase in the area is less than 15% of the saleable area and, therefore, in terms of aforesaid clause, consent of the complainant was not required. The Opposite Parties could, therefore, increase the area in accordance with the aforesaid provision in the Agreement. Had the complainant brought in evidence any expert report of an Architect/Engineer that there was no increase, the position would have been different. Since the complainant has neither adduced any evidence regarding non-existence of increased area nor raised any objection within 30 days, and since he is seeking possession, he is bound to pay for the increased area. The demand raised by the Opposite Parties on this account is, therefore, held to be perfectly justified.

38.        During arguments, the Counsel for the parties were in agreement that stamp duty and registration charges, shall be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed of the unit, in question, after possession is handed over; charges in the sum of Rs.18,000/- on account of advocate fee etc. would not be payable by the complainant, but incidental expenses, which may be incurred at the time of registration of sale deed, shall be borne by the complainant. In regard to contingent deposit of VAT also, it was agreed that same shall be payable by the complainant only as and when the same is paid by the Opposite Parties to the Government. Thus, at this stage, the complainant is held liable to pay the demand raised minus contingent vat, stamp duty, registration charges and advocate charges, within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In this complaint also, the complainant is held entitled to possession of the unit, in question, interest @12% per annum for the delayed period, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation cost of Rs.35,000/-. 

39.        As regards Complaint bearing Nos.356 of 2016, particulars of which are indicated in Table ‘C’ below, the complainant has sought refund of the deposited amount.

 

 

TABLE - C

Sr. No.	Description/ Details	CC No.356/2016
1.	Amount deposited. (Rs.)	23,36,041.00
2.	Date of Agreement.	10.02.2012
3.	Due date for offering possession.	09.02.2015
4.	Whether possession offered	No
5.	Delay in offering possession	1 years 10 Months
6.	Whether first allottee	2nd Allottee (12.07.2013)
7.	DLI	-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40.       In above Complaint No.356 of 2016, as is evident from record, the Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 10.02.2012. As per Clause 11(a) of the Agreement, the Company was to endeavor to complete construction of the independent floor within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the agreement unless there was delay or failure due to reasons mentioned in Clauses 11(b) and 11(c) or due to failure of the allottee to pay in time the total price and other charges, taxes and cesses, deposits, securities etc. and dues/payments or any failure on the part of the allottee to abide by all or any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Clause 12 of the Agreement stipulated that company upon obtaining certificate of occupation and use from the Governmental Authority, shall offer in writing, possession of the independent floor to the allottee in terms of the Agreement to be taken within 30 days from the date of issue of such notice and the Company shall give possession provided the allottee is not in default of any terms and conditions of the Agreement and has complied with all provisions, formalities, documentation etc., as may be prescribed by the Company in this regard. Period of 24 months stipulated in the Agreement plus the extended period of 12 months from the date of execution of the agreement expired on 09.02.2015. The possession of the unit, in question, has not been offered till date, meaning thereby that there is already delay of around 1 Year 10 Months in offering possession. No reason or circumstances, which were beyond the control of the Opposite Party for such inordinate delay beyond initial period of two years and one year extended period, have been explained. There is, thus, inordinate delay in offering possession of the allotted unit. This Commission in the case of Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, in the light of law settled by Hon’ble National Commission in such cases, held that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them with the Opposite Parties. Relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment read thus:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the  complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the  complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF   Land   Limited   and   another   Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the  complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid cases is fully applicable to the present case. It is therefore held that the  complainants could not be held guilty, of filing the present complaint, seeking refund of the deposited amount, alongwith interest and compensation, as possession of the unit was not offered to them by the stipulated date.

It was clearly stated by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC), that when the promoter has violated material condition, in not handing over possession of the unit, in time, it is not obligatory for a purchaser to accept possession after that date. 

41.        Now it is to be seen as to whether the complainant is entitled to interest on the deposited amount(s) from the dates of respective deposits. This issue came up for consideration before this Commission in Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors., Complaint Case No.147 of 2016 decided on 22.08.2016. In that case, this Commission granted interest to the complainant from the date of endorsement of the unit as he was subsequent purchaser of the unit. It is evident from record that the complainant is subsequent allottee. The original allottee was one Mr. Randhir Singh who, as averred by the complainant, is his relative. Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between Sh. Randhir Singh and the Opposite Party on 10.02.2012. In order to get the unit, in question, transferred in his name, the complainant made payment in the sum of Rs.16,27,011/- to Sh. Randhir Singh as is evident from documents at Pages 250 to 262 of written statement of Opposite Party. In addition to Rs.16,27,011/-, which the complainant paid to the original allottee, payment in the sum of Rs.6,67,645/- vide cheque dated 29.05.2013 (Annexure C-6) and another sum of Rs.41,385/- vide cheque No.277839 dated 14.10.2013, receipt of which was issued on 18.12.2013 (Annexure C-8), was made by the complainant. Thus, the total amount paid by the complainant is in the sum of Rs.23,36,041/-. On the basis of ratio of judgment in Darbara Singh and ors. Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited and Ors. (supra), on the amounts paid by the previous allottee i.e. Rs.16,27,011/-, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @15% per annum (simple) from the date when the payment was made by the complainant to the original allottee [The complainant has claimed to have made payment of Rs.16,27,011/- vide cheque dated 29.05.2011] and for the remaining amount i.e. Rs.6,67,645/- and Rs.41,385/-, the complainant shall be entitled to refund alongwith the same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of deposits. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation for physical harassment and mental agony in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation costs in the sum of Rs.35,000/-.

42.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties, in all the cases.

43.        For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints bearing No.374/2016, 356/2016, 375/2016, 376/2016, 377/2016, 378/2016, 379/2016 and 408/2016 are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

Consumer Complaints bearing No:

 

CC/374/2016	Anupama	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/375/2016	Vinay Narwal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/376/2016	Sheela Devi	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/377/2016	Geeta Narwal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/378/2016	Jorbal Singh Kajal	Vs	M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC/408/2016	Jugwant Singh Malik & Anr.	Vs	DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

 

             The Opposite Parties (DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.), in each of these cases, are jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit(s), allotted in favour of the complainant(s), complete in all respects, to the complainant(s), within four months from the date  of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on payment of the amount(s), by the complainant(s) due against them.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit(s), in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant(s). The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant(s).
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s), from 14.01.2014, 31.12.2013, 24.01.2014, 13.12.2013, 17.01.2014 and 06.01.2014, respectively till 30.11.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount(s) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount(s), to the complainant(s)  w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant(s), in each case, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint(s) till realization.

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

 

CC/379/2016

Ram Chander Sharma

Vs

M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

              In this complaint, payment against demand raised vide offer of possession letter, has not been deposited by the complainant. The demand, so raised, except the stamp duty & registration charges, contingent VAT deposit and Advocate charges, shall be deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

             The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, held liable and directed as under:-

(i)	To hand over physical possession of  the unit, allotted in favour of the complainant, complete in all respects, to the complainant, within a period of 30 days, from the date  balance payment is made by the complainant.
(ii)	Execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the unit, in question, within one month from the date of handing over of possession to the complainant. The stamp duty, registration charges and incidental expenses, if any, shall be borne by the complainant.
(iii)	To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the deposited amount, to the complainant, from 17.02.2014 till 30.11.2016, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
(iv)	To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount, to the complainant  w.e.f. 01.12.2016, onwards (per month), till possession is delivered, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a.,  from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)	Pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only) on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs, to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization.

 

            In this complaint, as agreed between the parties, the Advocate Charges shall not be charged by the Opposite Parties. The actual expenditure for registration of Sale Deed besides Stamp duty and Registration charges, shall, however, be borne by the complainant. The demand of contingent vat, shall be payable as and when the same becomes payable by the Opposite Parties to the Government.

             Since the demand raised has, by and large, been held to be justified, period of delay in making payment towards demand raised, beyond two months, shall be excluded for the purpose of payment of 12% interest compensation on delayed period.

 

Consumer Complaint bearing No:

 

CC/356/2016

Anil Kumar

Vs

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd.

 

 

             The Opposite Party, in this case, is held liable and directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.16,27,011/- (paid by the original allottee) alongwith interest @15% per annum (simple) from the date when the payment was made by the complainant to the original allottee and the remaining amount of Rs.6,67,645/- & Rs.41,385/- alongwith the same rate of interest i.e. 15% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of deposits, till realization, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Party shall pay the aforesaid amount(s) alongwith simple interest @18% per annum, instead of 15% per annum, from the date of default till actual payment;

 (ii)  To pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and Rs.35,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, failing which, the Opposite Party shall pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith simple interest @15% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment;

            However, it is made clear that in case, the complainant has availed loan facility from any financial institution(s), such an institution shall have the first charge on the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due against the complainant.

44.        Certified copy of this order, be placed on the files of consumer complaints bearing No.356/2016, 375/2016, 376/2016, 377/2016, 378/2016, 379/2016 and 408/2016.

45.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

46.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

10.11.2016

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

         MEMBER

Ad