Delhi

StateCommission

CC/784/2018

SH. VINOD KUMAR BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

VIKAS GUPTA

27 Jun 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 27.06.2019

Date of Decision :13.08.2019

COMPLAINT NO.784/2018

In the matter of:

 

Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal,

S/o. Shri Balwant Rai Bansal,

R/o. 56 Rajdhani Enclave,

Near Rani Bagh,

• ………Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Through its Chairman

Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain.

 

2. Shri Pardeep Kumar Jain,

Chairman of M/s. Parsvnath

Developers Ltd.

 

Both to be served at Corp. Office:

6.  

19, B.K. Road, New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.……..Opposite Parties

 

 

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. The case of the complainant is that in the year 2004 OP advertised in newspaper and hoardings that it was booking residential plots in its present and future project in ‘Parsvnath City’ near Tau Devi Lal Park, Sonepat, Haryana. It gave assurances that it would develop construction and hand over possession of the plot within 36 months. It further gave assurances that it had taken all necessary permissions and statutory approval  from competent authorities and there will not be any kind of hindrance and obstruction on their way in developing and constructing the plots. The complainant was in dire need of residential accommodation. He booked a plot measuring 300  sq. yds at the rate of Rs.5,500/- per sq yds. On 20.02.05 the agent of the OP received Rs.4,05,000/- from the complainant as advance for which a receipt was issued. Copy of the receipt is Annexure C/1. He further paid Rs.4.05,000/- against receipt dated 19.01.06. OP had derived the total financial benefit, advantage, gain and consideration to the  tune of Rs.8,10,000/- which is half of the amount of total cost of Rs.16,20,000/-.
2. Complainant had been continuously approaching the OPs to accept sale consideration and hand over physical and  vacant possession of the plot and to execute regular sale deed in his favour or refund the entire amount with interest @24% per annum. He had visited the site on several times but found that OP has not carried out any construction at site at the aforesaid project and even infrastructure has not been developed till date. He sent legal notice dated 15.12.15. Hence this complaint for directing the OP to execute sale  deed in respect of the plot or refund of Rs.8,10,000/- with interest @24% per annum since date of booking, direct the OP to pay monthly penalty @Rs.20,000/- per month for delay in handing over residential plot, to produce complete record of booking of plot with sanctioned, approved lay out plan, license, other necessary permissions etc. He has also sought compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental torture, pain, agony, suffering and set back. He has also sought Rs.70,000/- as litigation fees.
3. Initially the complaint was filed in the District Forum from where it was returned vide order dated 07.06.18 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in view of subsequent decision of three member bench of National Commission in Amrish Shukla.
4. The OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to entertain complaint is with respect to deficiency in making available the goods and services, failure in handing over possession of plot simpliciter can not be brought within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum as per decision of Hon’ble  Supreme Court in Ganesh Lal vs. Shyam. The complaint is time barred. Complainant is permanent resident of Delhi and he booked plot in Sonipat, Haryana. He had merely invested in the property for gaining profit from the booked plot. Complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties.  OP-2 may be deleted from the array of parties. Matter involves complicated question of facts and law which needs to be proved by detailed  oral as sell as documentary evidence. The same is not feasible as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Synco Industries vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur AIR 2002 SC 568. Interest can not be  awarded from date prior to institution of present proceedings or from the date of demand notice as per Section 3 Interest Act. On merits it took the same defence.
5. The complainant filed replication and his own affidavit  in evidence.
6. On the other hand the OP has filed affidavit of Shri Madan Lal Dogra, Dy. General Manager.
7. The OP has filed written arguments in support of his case. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments. . The objection of the OP that present case is not covered under Consumer Protection Act has to be rejected for the simple reason that it is not a case of sale of plot. Rather it is a case of booking, developing of a plot out of a big lot, provide approach  road, park, hospital and another amenities.
8. Objection of limitation can not be sustained as cause of action in the case of possession is continuous.
9. For showing that complainant is investor, OP has to give examples of other purchase and sale made by the complainant. It has not done the same.
10. No complicated question of facts and law arises.
11. Booking by the complaisant and payment by him is not in dispute. Booking was done in 2005. Now we are in 2019. No development has yet taken place. Hence OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.8,10,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of respective payments till the date of refund.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
13. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)