Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/689/2020

Mrs. Vinca Sobti - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parsavnath Developers Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Anita Sharma & Ashish Sharma

08 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	689 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.12.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	08.10.2024

 

 

 

 

1.  Mrs.Vinca Sobti wife of Mr.Bodh Raj Sobti

2.  Mr.Bodh Raj Sobti s/o late Sh.Des Raj Sobti

Both resident of House No.1122, Sector 15, Panchkula-134113.

         … … … Complainants

 

Versus

1.  M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (through its Managing Director) 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

2.  The Managing Director, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Sh.Ashish Sharma, Counsel for Complainants.

None for OPs.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading OP company was to develop a project in the name of ‘Parsvnath Pride Asia’ at Chandigarh and for this project, land was to be provided by Chandigarh Housing Board for which an agreement dated 06.10.2006 was signed by the OP Company with Chandigarh Housing Board.

    It is submitted that complainants applied for residential plot in Block E3, Ground Floor/G01 of 740 sq.ft. @ 6950/- per sq. ft. The total price of the plot was Rs.55,28,725/-. The agreement (Annexure C-1) was signed by the complainants and OPs on 25.01.2008. The allotment letter dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure C-2) for allotment of Residential Flat No.G01 in Parsnvath Pride Asia, RGCTP, Chandigarh, was issued to the complainants. It is submitted that as per agreement, the complainants paid Rs.15,85,750/- for the plot, i.e. Rs.2,57,000/- application money, Rs.2,57,300/- basic cost of plot & Rs.10,71,450/- basic cost + car parking.

    It is further submitted that project of the OPs was closed due to disputes arising between the OP company and Chandigarh Housing Board. Entire bookings of flats were cancelled by OP company and an arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 was passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Raveendran. According to arbitration award, 70% amount was to be refunded by OP Company along with interest and 30% amount was to be refunded by Chandigarh Housing Board along with interest. It is submitted that Rs.4,75,725/- (30% share) along with 9% interest i.e. Rs.2,75,742/- was paid by Chandigarh Housing Board on 06.02.2015 and 04.03.2015. It is further submitted that Rs.11,10,025/- (70% share) was paid by OP Company on 04.03.2015 but this amount was paid without interest. It is submitted that 10% interest rate was revised by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated 11.05.2016 as well as directed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 17.12.2019 in case of ‘Chandigarh Housing Board vs. M/s Parasvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors.’ CA-10748 of 2016, which was payable by M/s Parasvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. @ 10%, but the OPs have not made any payment of interest amount even after several letters/reminders (Annexure C-9 to C-13). Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.13,07,184/- on account of due interest till 23.02.2020 from the date of respective deposits by complainants to the OPs and further 10% interest till realization; compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

2]       The complaint has been resisted by OPs by filing a written version in which OPs have stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. It is stated that Development Agreement was signed between OP No.1 and Chandigarh Housing Board on 06.10.2006 which envisaged completion of the project in three years i.e. upto 06.10.2009 subject to provision of Clause 2.2.2 of the Agreement. The Flat Buyer Agreement was signed on 25.01.2008. It is the case of the OPs that limitation should be computed from the date of Flat Buyer Agreement and thus there has been a delay of more than two years in filing the present complaint. It is further stated that principal amount was refunded to the complainants in the year 2015 and even if the limitation period is computed from the date of refund of principal amount i.e. 2015 and taking into consideration the fact that the refund was accepted without any protest, there has been a delay of more than two years in filing the complaint which is totally unexplained. It is stated that complainants are not even consumers as once the amount is refunded and accepted without any protest. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainants controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       The case of the complainants is that they applied for residential plot in Block E3, Ground Floor/G01 of 740 sq.ft. @ 6950/- per sq. ft and the total price of the plot was Rs.55,28,725/-. As per agreement, the complainants paid Rs.15,85,750/- for the plot. The project of the OPs was closed due to disputes arising between the OP company and Chandigarh Housing Board. Entire bookings of flats were cancelled by OP company and an arbitration award dated 09.01.2015 was passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Raveendran, according to which, 70% amount was to be refunded by OP-M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited along with interest and 30% amount was to be refunded by Chandigarh Housing Board along with interest. It is submitted that Rs.4,75,725/- (30% share) along with 9% interest i.e. Rs.2,75,742/- has already been refunded by Chandigarh Housing Board on 06.02.2015 & 04.03.2015. Though Rs.11,10,025/- (70% share) has also been refunded by OP Company M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited on 04.03.2015 but without interest. Hence, the relief of the complainants in the present complaint is OP Company M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited is liable to pay interest on the principal amount of Rs.11,10,025/- (70% share).

7]      The complainants have relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled as “Surinder Singh Atwal vs. M/s Parasvanath Developers Ltd. & ors.” decided on 11.05.2016, where in similar set of facts, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that both the OPs i.e. M/s Parasvanath Developers Ltd. & Chandigarh Housing Board are directed to pay to the complainant the principal amount in the sum of Rs.1,03,31,250/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date(s) of deposit(s) till its realization.

8]      The aforesaid order dated 11.05.2016 was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘Chandigarh Housing Board vs. M/s Parasvnath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & anr.’ decided on 17.12.2019, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-

“14.   With respect to the second issue concerning the enhancement of interest rate, Clause 9(d) of the Tripartite Agreement is relevant. As mentioned supra, this Clause requires the Developer and CHB to refund the amounts received from the buyer with interest if the Developer is unable to deliver the unit to the buyer due to non-approvals from the competent authorities. Here, under Clause 9(d), the parties are liable to refund the principal sum in the ratio of 70:30 as they had received the sale proceeds in the same ratio. It has been brought to our notice that CHB has already paid 30% of the principal sum at 9% interest p.a. in accordance with the directions of the National Commission in order dated 05.03.2013 passed in a similar matter. Notably, the interest rate was revised to 10% p.a. in the impugned order and has been challenged by the Appellant. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same, as the increase was made by the National Commission in exercise of its discretionary power. It is possible that the National Commission chose to enhance the interest rate in view of the fact that it had already imposed lesser compensation than the significantly higher compensation stipulated under Clause 9(c). Thus, the contention of the Appellant on this front is liable to be dismissed.

15. In view of the foregoing observations, we find that the National Commission was right in directing the Developer and CHB to pay the principal sum of Rs. 1,03,31,250/- at 10% p.a. to the Complainant herein. Further, it is found that the direction to pay Rs. 2 lakhs in toto towards mental harassment and litigation costs in the ratio of 70:30 between the Developer and CHB, is also correct.”

9]       In view of the above said discussions, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to pay to the complainants interest @ 10% p.a. on the already refunded 70% amount i.e. Rs.11,10,025/- (Rs.1,79,900/- {70% of Rs.2,57,000/- deposited on 19.09.2007} + Rs.1,80,110/- {70% of Rs.2,57,300/- deposited on 03.12.2007} + Rs.7,50,015/- {70% of Rs.10,71,450/- deposited on 03.01.2008), from the respective date(s) of deposit(s) till 04.03.2015 (i.e. when the said payment was made to the complainants).

        The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

08.10.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER

as