Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/59/2017

Mohd. Zakui s/o Mohd. Ayub - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gensis Infratech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishnu Kant Labh.

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 59/2017

 

Mohd.Zaki r/o 113, Inder Enclave, Block -D, Phase I, Village Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi

Vs.

M/s.Gensis Infratech Pvt.Ltd. office- 310-311 Vipul Agora, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana & ors.

 

Date of Order 23.10.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr.Vishnukant Sharma counsel for the complainant

Mr.Man Mohan Singh counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This complaint has been filed on 30.5.2017 with the contention that complainant booked a flat on 10.1.2013 in residential apartment with Gensis Infratech Pvt.Ltd. and amount of Rs.22,59,000/- were paid. Possession of the property was to be handed over on or before 1.10.2015 but till today the project is not complete. Hence, he asked for refund of the money alongwith interest, compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that he applied for occupation certificate which was not issued to him hence, possession of the property could not be handed over and no deficiency could be attributed to them.

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant booked a flat with the non-applicant. Document Ex. 1 shows that he paid the requisite amount of Rs.22,59,000/-. Inspite of the notice possession of the property was not handed over to him. Ex. 2 shows that the non-applicants are not in a position

3

 

to offer possession. As per buyer's agreement within 36 months from the date of agreement i.e. 10.1.2013 the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant which was not given till today.In view of the above it can very well be concluded that the non-applicants are deficient.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that as per condition no. 51 (c) of the buyer's agreement if possession has not been handed over due to delay of non-receipt of occupation certificate they cannot be held liable.

 

Today the non-applicant has submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC and submitted two letters which were sent to the concerned authority which clearly shows that even requisite fee for issuing of occupation certificate was paid on 25.4.2017 whereas the possession of the property was to be handed over to the complainant till January 2016 which shows that it is deliberate delay on the part of the non-applicant.

 

The contention of the complainant is that in case of default in payment as per condition no. 8 of the buyer's

4

 

agreement the non-applicants are charging 24% interest hence, same interest rate be allowed to him but it seems to be on very higher side. Hence, it is appropriate to allow 15% interest to the complainant.

 

The complainant has relied upon the judgment passed by Chandigarh State Commission in Complaint No. 73/2016 Neeraj Kinra Vs. Emaar Mfg. Land Pvt.Ltd. where the Chandigarh State Commission has also allowed 15% interest.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 22,59,000/- alongwith 15% interest from the date of each deposit. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings which should be paid to the complainant within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm