Delhi

StateCommission

CC/927/2018

BALWANT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GOUTAM BHOL

22 Nov 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :22.11.2019

Date of Decision : 27.11.2019

COMPLAINT NO.927/2018

In the matter of:

 

Mr. Balwant Singh,

S/o. Mr. Mehar Singh,

R/o. 61, Vidya Vihar,

West Enclave, delhi-110034.………Complainant

 

Versus

M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

6.  

19 Barakhamba Road, new Delhi-110001.           …..Opposite party

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. This case was initially filed in District Forum New Delhi where it was registered as no.900/14. The same was returned for being filed in this Commission vide order dated 17.04.18 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, in view of three member bench decision of NC in Amrish Shukla.
2. The case of the complainant is  that he booked a shop with the OP at the rate of Rs.4750/- per sq. ft. in Parsvnath Mall in Parsvnath  City in Sonipat. The shop no. was UGF-03 with built up area of  662 sq. ft. with proportionate undivided right in the plot and in the common area and  facilities of the  complex. The complainant chose plan-B i.e. construction linked plan. On 15.05.07 he paid Rs.2,50,000/- vide cheque. He again paid Rs.2,21,675/-/- vide  cheque. The total booking amount was Rs.4,71,675/-/. Shop  buyer agreement was executed on 18.12.07. When he enquired about construction from the site, he was not given any satisfactory answer. Since there was no work in site for a long time, he did not pay more. At a very belated stage  he came to know the OP has abandoned the project. The complaint requested to refund the  booking amount but to no response. He sent legal notice on 28.07.14. Hence this complaint for directing OP to refund Rs.4,71,675/- with interest @24% p.a. from date of booking till actual  payment and Rs.10 lakhs for loss of earning capacity, Rs.5 lakhs towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. The OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that complainant is not consumer, he purchased the property  for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood. Clause 10 (d) of the agreement provided for payment of delay in completion of the shop @10/- per sq. ft. of the  super area per month. There is no provision for payment of interest @24%  p.a. in the shop buyer agreement. On merits the OP stated that Rs.6,28,975/- was outstanding from the complainant. Time was not the essence of the contract.
4. The  complainant filed rejoinder and his own affidavit in evidence.
5. On the other hand the OP filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Kashyap, Additional General  Manager.
6. The complainant has  filed written arguments. OP has also filed written arguments.
7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The objection of the OP that booking was of a shop is not sustainable as complainant has mentioned in the complaint itself in para-1 that he  was looking for a shop to earn livelihood. With that object he booked the shop. Such booking is covered under Consumer Protection Act by virtue of explanation to Section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act.
8. There is no dispute regarding booking or payment made by complainant or failure of the OP to construct the shop. Hence the complaint is allowed and Op is directed to refund Rs.4,71,625/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of refund.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)