Haryana

StateCommission

CC/637/2018

DEEPA JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

RAHUL MAKKAR

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.637 of  2018

Date of the Institution:21.11.2018

Date of Final Hearing:   25.11.2022

Date of pronouncement:16.01.2023

 

Mrs. Deepa Jain W/o Sh.Arun Jain, R/o  House No.M-15, Indraprasth Colony, Sonipat road, Rohtak, Distt.Rohtak, Haryana.

 

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (Corporate Office) 6h Floor Arunachal Building 12 Khamba Road, New Delhi 110001.
2. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (Regd. Office.) Parsvnath Metro Tower Shahdara Metro Station,Shahdara,Delhi 110032.
3. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (site office) Parsvnath City, Sector 31, Close to IMT Off Delhi Bye Pass Road, Rohtak.
4. Mr. Pradeep Jain, Chairman, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (Regd. Office.) Parsvnath Metro Tower Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi 110032.
5. Mr.Sanjeev Jain, Managing director & CEO Prsvnath Developers Limited (Regd. Office.) M/s Parsvnath Metro Tower Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara,Delhi 110032.
6. Dr.Rajeev Jain, Director Marketing, M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (Regd. Office.) Parsvnath Metro Tower Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara,Delhi 110032.

                                                          .….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rahul Makkar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint  are that complainant purchased a floor in the project of “Parsvnath Elite Floors” at Parsvnath City in Sector 31, Rohtak. On 19.08.2010, she deposited initial amount of Rs.90,625/- with the OPs following which OPs allotted a residential floor No.A-49G (Ground Floor) to her as per agreement/letter No.PDL/Elite Floors/3805 dt. 17.07.2014 vide provisional allotment letter dated 17.07.2014. On 30.07.2014, 04.10.2014, the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.2,75,473/- and Rs.3,14,190,57 Ps. respectively. The possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the complainant within 24 months of the provisional allotment i.e. 17.07.2014.   As per agreement, the complainant paid more than Rs.6,80,288.50p upto 29.09.2014 as per the receipts. The complainant requested the OPs number of times  to give the possession of the apartment, but, to no avail. The complainant further requested the OPs to adjust their amount in some other project of the company as the same builder was having a number of projects but the said request was not accepted and they assured her to hand over the possession shortly. As per the agreement, the OP were supposed to make endeavour to deliver the possession of the apartment to the allottee within 24 months from the date of execution of this agreement and if the OP failed to deliver the possession then the company held itself liable to pay a penalty of sum of Rs.5/- per sq. feet per month.  The OPs have not completed the project and failed to develop the site in question. Faced with this situation, he served legal notice dated 25.05.2018, 25.08.2018 but all in vain. Due to delay of project, the complainant lost interest in the apartment and requested the OP to refund the entire amount  paid by her  alongwith interest but, they did not consider the genuine request.  Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant prayed that OP be directed to refund the deposited amount  alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.P.  Mr. Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs and filed reply.  It was submitted that one Mr. Jagdish Lal (Original allottee) made an advance registration for allotment of a residential floor of 2 bed rooms measuring 1050 sq. ft. on ground floor in the P&F project for basic cost of Rs.20,25,000/- after brokerage discount of 5% on 18.08.2010 and paid a booking amount if Rs.90,625/-. On 19.01.2011, the original allottee transferred his registration in the name of complainant.  On 17.07.2014, OP provisionally allotted a floor bearing No.A-049-G measuring 1290 sq. ft. in the project named Parsvnath Elite Floor, Rohtak, Haryana at the basic cost of Rs.23,67,500/- to the complainant. She did not deposit the balance dues as per payment plan opted by her. Till date, the complainant has paid the total sum of Rs.6,80,289/- only towards the basic cost of the floor.  It was  denied that any promises for delivery of the flat within 24 months was made by the OPs.  Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit of Mrs. Deepa Jain Ex.CA vide which she reiterated all the averments raised in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

4.                The perusal of the record shows that OPs failed to produce on record any evidence  despite availing repeated opportunities including the last one on two consecutive hearings and finally the court has closed its evidence vide order dated 08.07.2022. Hence, the evidence of the complainant has gone un-rebutted.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Rahul Makkar, learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which she had already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

7.                While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Rahul Makkar, learned counsel for the complainant that factum of purchase of the apartment in question by complainant is not denied by OPs.  It is also not in dispute that basic price of the apartment was Rs.20,25,000/-.   It is also not in dispute that complainant has deposited Rs.6,80,289/- with the OPs.  It is also not disputed that  original allottee had transferred the apartment in the name of complainant.   The OPs have not completed the project and failed to develop the site in question till date. The deadline for delivering possession of the floor in question had already expired sincelong despite complainant depositing the amount of Rs.6,80,289/-.  In these circumstances the complainant had no other option, but, to seek refund of the amount alongwith interest, which she had already paid.  All these facts have also not been assailed by the OPs and have gone un-challenged.

8.                The counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the complainant has not paid the outstanding amount as per the payment plan.  The OPs vehemently denied that they ever agreed that they will give the possession of the floor to the complainant within 24 months. Till date the complainant has only paid the total sum of Rs.6,80,289/-, whereas the basic price of the floor was Rs.20,25,000/-.   The complainant was not entitled to refund as well as interest as prayed for.  

9.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, apartment was purchased by the previous allottees, which was transferred to the complainant on 19.01.2011.  In total the complainant has deposited Rs.6,80,289/- with the OPs.  The opposite parties have clearly violated the terms and conditions of the Act. The OP has not completed the site in question till date. To the utter surprise of this Commission and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 12 years had expired, the possession of the apartment has not been delivered by O.Ps.  As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the Act.   It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would collect the hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there was deficiency in service of opposite parties  and thus, complainant is well within her legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.6,80,289/-  which she had already deposited with the O.Ps.  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, she had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.  In such like cases  the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals.  As such the question is answered in the affirmative.

10.              In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.P. is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.6,80,289/-  (Six lacs Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Nine Only)    alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum from  the date of endorsement of rights in favour of complainant i.e. 19.01.2011 till realization.   In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty Five Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

11.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

January 16th, 2023          Suresh Chander Kaushik,          S.P.Sood

                                       Member                                    Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)