Delhi

North East

CC/71/2020

Joginder Pal Salota - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parsavnath Builders Pvt. Ltd. Through its Directors- Mr. Pradeep Jain - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.71/20

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Joginder Pal Salota, S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Salota, R/o B-17/F1, B- Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Parsavnath Builders Pvt. Ltd., Through its Directors: 1.Mr. Pradeep Jain 2.Mr. Sanjeev Jain 3.Mr. Rajiv Jain   Having office At: Parsavnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

10.12.2020 31.05.2024 27.08.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he booked a flat for his son Dr. Vishal Salota and daughter-in-law Dr. Rashim Salota in the housing project of Opposite Party namely “Parsavnath Exotica”. Both Dr. Vishal Salota and Dr. Rashim Salota had executed Special Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2018 in his favour.  Opposite Party allotted a flat bearing no. D-5-703 in tower no. D-5 and area was approx. 1,920 sq. ft. The price of the said flat was settled as Rs. 53,91,648/-. On 22.05.2008, a Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the son and daughter-in-law of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Complainant stated that he and his son had made the payment of Rs. 46,84,577/-. Complainant stated that Opposite Party assured them that they would deliver the said flat within 36 months from the date of executing the Flat Buyer Agreement i.e. 22.05.2011. Complainant stated that when he and his family members visited the site of the project then they saw that the construction of the said project was going very slow and when Complainant intimated the officials of the Opposite Party then they gave very lame excuses. Complainant stated that after some time of the booking of the flat and after lapse of delivery date of the flat i.e. 22.05.2011, the construction on the site was totally stopped by the Opposite Party and Opposite Party even stopped picking the calls of the Complainant and even stopped entertaining the Complainant at their office. Complainant stated that the licence to construct the said alleged housing society had already expired way back on 17.03.2012 and still the same had not been renewed. Complainant stated that the Opposite Party was regularly asked for payment and the same were made even after the expire of the license of the construction. Complainant stated that he approached SHO PS Shahdara vide complaint dated 22.11.2018 and had already made number of complaints to the higher authorities too but to no avail and no action was taken by any authority. Complainant stated that he had filed a complaint which was decided vide order dated 25.03.2019 by the court and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to order an FIR and the same is under investigation. Complainant stated that Opposite Party admitted that Opposite Party had been paid an amount of Rs. 46,84,580/- by the son and daughter-in-law of the Complainant. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 46,84,577/- i.e. payment made by the son and daughter-in-law of the Complainant along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of delivery of flat i.e. May 2011. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainants are residing in U.P and they have purchased the flat in question for commercial purpose and therefore, they are not consumers within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainants are not consumers. It is stated that delay in completion of the project was beyond to the control of the Opposite Party as the plans are still pending for approval with the concerned Authority. It is stated that the Complainants are not allowed to refund of the money as this is not a civil court. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Madan Dogra, who is Deputy General Manager of the Opposite Party, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his son and daughter-in-law had booked the flat in question with the Opposite Party. The Complainant is holder of Special Power of Attorney in his favour which was executed by his son             Dr. Vishal Salota and daughter-in-law Dr. Rashim Salota. As per the case of the Complainant, the flat no. D-5-703 in tower no. D-5 was allotted to the son and daughter-in-law of the Complainant and they paid Rs. 46,84,577/- to the Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that despite making the payment, the possession of the flat was not delivered. It is his case that the project was never completed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The case of the Opposite Party is that the project could not be completed due to the circumstances which were beyond to the control of the Opposite Party. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the delay in completing the project was due to the reason that the plans were pending for sanction with the competent authority.
7. From the evidence led by the Complainant and the Opposite Party, it is prove that the Complainant had booked a flat for his son Dr. Vishal Salota and daughter-in-law Dr. Rashim Salota and an agreement was also executed. The Complainant made payment of Rs. 46,84,577/-. It is also admitted that the possession of the flat in question was never delivered to the Complainant.
8. During the pendency of the case, settlement was arrived at between the parties and the matter was settled for a sum of Rs. 64,84,580/-. Out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid vide DD No. 462103 dated 05.09.2022 and the remaining amount was to be paid vide post-dated cheques. The said cheques were dishonored for the reasons “payments stopped by drawer/funds insufficient”. After the settlement was arrived at between the parties the case was adjourned sine die. Thereafter, on the application of the Complainant the case was revived as the terms of settlement were not complied due to the dishonor of the cheques.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved the case. The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 46,84,577/- to Dr. Vishal Salota and Dr. Rashim Salota along with interest @ 9 %  p.a. from 29.04.2013 till recovery. The Opposite Party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses to  Dr. Vishal Salota and Dr. Rashim Salota along with interest @ 9 %  p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
10. Order announced on 27.08.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)