Haryana

Sonipat

CC/283/2015

Sunheri Devi W/o Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parasvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Kumar Tyagi

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

                             Complaint No.283 of 2015

                             Instituted on:14.08.2015                                           Date of order:26.02.2016

 

 

Sunehri Devi wife of Prem Singh r/o village Ugra Kheri, distt. Sonepat at present r/o Gali no.8, near Suraj Petrol Pump, Vikas Nagar, Murthal road, Sonepat.

                                                ……Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.Parsvnath  Developers Ltd, Redg. & Corp. office at 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba road, New Delhi-01 through its Director.

2.The Branch Manager, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., GT road, Sonepat.

 

     ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Kuldeep Tyagi Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. BS Gupta, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that in the year 2005, the complainant approached the respondent no.1 and wished to purchase the plot measuring 400 sq. yards, but the respondents told that all the stocks are already booked, but one Parshant Pilania r/o Essel Tower, Gurgaon who had got booked for such plot was ont interested to pursue his booking and he intends to sell the plot. The said Parshant Pilania had deposited Rs.5,50,000/- with the respondents vide receipt dated  1.3.2005 and the respondents offered to get transferred the said booking in favour of the complainant at the rate of Rs.5500/- per sq. yards and the complainant has agreed for the same and the respondents issued a letter dated 27.2.2006 in favour of the complainant and issued customer ID no.H/K0063 to the complainant. The complainant has deposited Rs.11,00,000/- with the respondents and after depositing this amount, the complainant has requested the respondents to allot the plot but of no use and nine years has already been expired and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that merely making an application for allotment of plot in the present and future projects of the respondents, does not make the complainant entitle to have a plot allotted in his/her favour. As per terms of the agreement, the complainant has categorically agreed to accept refund of the amount deposited by the complainant at the rate of 10% simple interest in the eventuality that no allotment of plot is made to the complainant.  The complainant duly acknowledge and accepted the said terms which are binding on both the parties.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief by way of present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

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

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that huge amount of the complainant is lying deposited with the respondents, but despite this, the respondents have failed to allot the plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that merely making an application for allotment of plot in the present and future projects of the respondents, does not make the complainant entitle to have a plot allotted in his/her favour. As per terms of the agreement, the complainant has categorically agreed to accept refund of the amount deposited by the complainant at the rate of 10% simple interest in the eventuality that no allotment of plot is made to the complainant.  The complainant duly acknowledge and accepted the said terms which are binding on both the parties.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief by way of present complaint since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          We have gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and it appears that the respondents have failed to  allot any plot to the complainant despite the fact that they have received the huge amount from the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant for their personal gain and without providing any services to the complainant. 

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has requested for the grant of 18% interest by relying upon the case law rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Puneet Malhotra Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. dated 29.1.2015 and Subhash Chander Mahajan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. dated 5.5.2014.

          The respondents have also placed on record Annexure OP2 i.e. case law titled as Ganesh Lal Vs.Shyam. 

          But the perusal of the contents of this case law reveals that the facts of the present case and the cited law are totally different.  In the present case, there is a dispute regarding the deficiency in service in between the complainant and the builders and no issue regarding demarcation, ownership and possession is involved in the case in hand.  Whereas in the cited case, there is a dispute between two private parties and not between any individual and builders.  So, the respondents cannot take the benefit of the cited law.

          Thus, taking into consideration the above said law of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the view that since there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, thus, they are liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the entire deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.75000/- (Rs.seventy five thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

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

          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:26.02.2016