Haryana

StateCommission

CC/123/2014

Sinder Paul Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Intime Promoters Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.123 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 20.11.2014                  Date of Decision: 09.02.2017

 

Sinder Paul Garg S/o Karam Chand R/o H.No.144, Sector 17, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Intime Promoters Private Limited, Registered office at 9, Kasaturba Gandhi, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized signatory.

2.      Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd, 9, Kasturba Gandhi, New Delhi-110001 through its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized Signatory.

3.      Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. TDI City, TDI Mall, Kundli through its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized signatory.

4.      Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Lake Groove, Sector road, Kundli through its Managing Director, Partner/Authorized signatory.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Munish Goyal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr.Bhupender Singh, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by complainant that  he applied with opposite party (O.P.) on 17.11.2005 for allotment of plot measuring 500 sq. yard and deposited Rs.7,75,000/- at that time.  The rate of plot was Rs.7750/- per sq. yard and EDC @ 790 per sq. yd. total price was to the tune of Rs.42,70,000/-. Vide letter dated 09.01.2006 Ex.C-2 he was asked to deposit Rs.3,87,500/- and Rs.98,750/- which were deposited on 27.02.2006.  Vide letter dated 02.06.2006 O.Ps. were requested to supply allotment letter, conveyance deed etc., but, to no use. Reminder was also sent on 13.07.2006, but, without any result. Rather O.Ps. sent letter dated 19.04.2007 to deposit remaining amount as mentioned below:-

          “PLC Amount                         Rs.1,35,625/-

          Installment due till date                  Rs.34,87,500/-

          EDC due                                Rs.3,95,000/-

          Total amount due                  Rs.40,18,125/-

          Amount received                            Rs.12,61,250/-

          Interest due                            Rs.10,15,034.28/-

          Balance due                          Rs.37,71,909/-“

He deposited Rs.eight lacs in cash, Rs.14,56,875/- and Rs.13,00,000/- vide different cheques on 13.06.2008, but, O.Ps. issued receipt qua cheques only. Rs.eight lacs paid by him were adjusted towards interest on delayed payment. Vide statement dated 25.08.2008 nothing was due towards him.  In all he paid Rs.48,18,125/-, but, O.Ps. did not deliver possession till filing of complaint. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps., they be directed to refund the amount already deposited by him alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment besides compensation as mentioned in clause No.B and C of Para No.27 of complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply admitting booking of plot, but, alleged that he did not deposit the requisite amount as mentioned in payment schedule, attached with the application form. Letters dated 02.06.2006 and Annexure R-3 clearly show that he could not arrange remaining amount as loan was not sanctioned by bank.  It is clear that he did not deposit the remaining amount in time. He has paid only Rs. 40,18,125/- till date without any interest on the delayed payment.  Demand about EDC etc. were raised vide letters dated 21.08.2009 and 23.08.2010. The project is properly developed and averments raised by complainant are altogether wrong. He is not entitled for any refund as being defaulter and complaint being dismissed.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that he deposited Rs.48,18,125/-, with the O.ps., but, they have only shown Rs.40,18,125/- Rs.eight lacs deposited by him on 13.06.2008 are not shown in his account.  Despite deposit of such heavy amount O.Ps. have not offered possession so they be directed to refund the amount already deposited by him alongwith interest etc. as mentioned in relief clause of the claim.

5.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.ps. vehemently argued that from perusal of letters Ex.R-2 and R-3 it is clear that complainant was not having sufficient amount because his loan was not sanctioned by the bank and that is why he could not deposit the same in time. When amount was not deposited in time his allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 01.11.2007 Ex.R-4. Even thereafter he was afforded an opportunity to pay remaining amount vide letter Ex.R-5 (colly), but he did not come forward.  The project is fully developed, but, instead of taking possession he is asking for refund for which he is not entitled.

6.      Complainant has miserably failed to show that receipt Ex.C-12 was issued by O.Ps. qua deposit of Rs.eight lacs.  Neither he has produced original of this receipt nor he has got the signatures thereupon proved from any source.  When O.ps. denied payment of Rs.eight lacs it was the boundened duty of the complainant to prove the same. So it cannot be alleged by him that he deposited Rs.48,18,125/-.  If we deduct this amount then as per statement Ex.C-16 it is clear that he deposited Rs.40,18,125/- till 25.08.2008.  It cannot be alleged that he did not pay entire amount qua this plot. As per statement of account dated 25.08.2008 Ex.C-16 it is clear that nothing was due towards him. Had he been liable to pay any amount the same must have been mentioned therein.  So, it cannot be alleged by O.ps. that complainant was liable to pay amount mentioned in Ex.R-5 dated 21.08.2009 and letter dated 23.08.2010.  When complainant has paid such huge amount, it was duty of O.Ps. to deliver possession.  Mr. Tejinder Rathee appeared as witness on behalf of O.Ps. on 02.02.2017, but, did not produce completion certificate even on said date. It was also stated by him he could not show lay out plan.  It shows that the project was not complete even on said date not to talk of filing of complaint. When O.ps. have not delivered possession in time complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. 2007 STPL 9386 NC, Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, IV (2014) CPJ 589, M/s Utopia projects pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shahin Bi Mulla 2015 (2) CPR 540 (case law cited by the complainant’s counsel).

7.      As a sequel to above discussion, complainant is held entitled for the refund of Rs.40,18,125/- alongwith interest @ Rs.09% per annum from the date of respective deposits. He is also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.21,000/- qua mental harassment etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

February, 09th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.