Haryana

StateCommission

CC/416/2017

ANURAG GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.B.GUPTA

21 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      Complaint Case No.416 of 2017

                                      Date of Institution:05.07.2017

                                      Date of Decision:21.09.2018

 

1.      Anurag Goyal wife of Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta,

2.      Ram Kumar Gupta son of Sh. Prem Chand, Both residents of House No.319, GH-110, Sector-20, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Complainants

Versus

 

 

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

2.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, through its Local Manager, Parsvnath Royale, Panchkula, Sector-20, Part-II, Panchkula.

…..Opposite parties

 

 

CORAM:             Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                             Mrs. Manjula, Member.

                                                

Present:-             Ms.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, complainant in person.

                             Mr. B.R. Madan, proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for opposite parties.

                  

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.                The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present complaint that complainants initially booked a residential flat in November, 2010 measuring 1780 sq. ft. with the opposite parties (O.Ps.) in Parsvnath Royal at sector-20, Panchkula.  The total sale consideration for the said flat was agreed at Rs.57,85,000/-. 

2.                It has further been alleged that Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 20.12.2010 and O.Ps. allotted a flat to the complainant in Tower T-4 bearing No.404O.Ps. were promised to provide the fully developed constructed site at the spot.  For the purpose of allotment of a flat, the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.42,66,014/- by way of different cheques and on different stages. 

3.                It has further been alleged that as per agreement, OPs would offer the possession of the flat within a period of 36 months from the date of buyer’s agreement, but till today they did not offer the flat.  In the Buyers Agreement, there was a specific clause that in case of failure on the part of O.Ps then they will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount for delay in offering the possession of the said flat.

4.                It has further been alleged that he was regularly visited the site of the O.Ps, but they surprised to see that there was no sign of development at the site.  Hence, under the constraint circumstance, the complainant had no option but to file the present complaint with the prayer that the appropriate direction may be issued to the O.Ps. to make payment of a sum of Rs.42,66,014/- which had been deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the respective dates of its deposit. The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- had also been sought for causing mental and physical agony and the amount of Rs.33,000/-   as litigation expenses.

5.                Upon notice of the complaint, O.Ps. appeared but, failed to file their reply despite availing several opportunities and their defense was struck of vide order dated 17^th May, 2018 by this Commission.

6.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainants, Ms. Anurag Goyal, one of the complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed evidence on behalf of complainants.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Ms.Anurag Goyal, who is one of the complainants and Mr. B.R. Madan, learned proxy counsel for O.Ps. With their kind assistance the entire records of the complaint as well as voluminous documentary evidence led on behalf of both the parties has been properly perused and examined.

8.                As per the admitted facts of the case is concerned, complainants have booked an unit in the residential property to be developed by the O.Ps., known as Parsvnath Royal in the area of Sector-20, Panchkula in the month of November, 2010. In this regard, flat buyer’s agreement (Ex.C-1) was also executed on 14.02.2011, contained all terms and conditions. The buyer’s agreement also contains the schedule of making the payment of the installments in the different phases. In case, there is default in making the payment, the O.Ps. are within the legal rights to charge the penal rate of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. However, as per schedule of the payment and the ledger account (Ex.C-3) furnished by O.Ps to the complainants as well as Cheque bearing No.944462 dated 30.07.2014 (Ex.C-4) issued in favour of O.Ps, a total amount of Rs.41,66,014.27 had been paid. As per Clause-10(a) of buyer’s agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months by the O.Ps after completion of the same and making all kinds of development. There is a provision of grace period of six months and as per Clause-10 (a) of the buyer’s agreement including the grace period, the possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before August, 2014. However, the possession of flat was not delivered to the complainants by the O.Ps and under these circumstances, complainants filed the present complaint because complainants now no longer interested to take possession and requested for refund of amount alongwith interest.

9.                As per the document Ex.C-1, in order to make the payment of entire sale consideration, complainants obtained loan of Rs.14,00,000/- sanctioned from State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh. As per contentions raised by Ms. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, who is one of the complainant, only one installment of Rs.6,00,000/- had been paid and since the construction was delayed, remaining installments were not paid to the O.Ps. Apart from the details of payments, which is subject matter of document Ex.C-3, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- had been paid to the O.Ps on 30.07.2014. Inspite of the fact that a period of more than four years as per the actual date of delivery of the unit had been lapsed, but the possession had not been delivered. More so, in order to rebut the evidence led by complainants, no evidence has been led by the O.Ps. and after filing of present complaint, no reply was filed by the O.ps and  even in non compliance of the order passed by this Commission, costs was imposed upon the O.Ps and the same was not paid.

10.              Hence, there is not rebutted version of the complaint including no evidence of O.Ps in order to rebut the documentary evidence led by complainants, there is no reason which disbelieve the averments taken in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex.CA sworn on behalf of one of the complainants, Ms. Anurag Goyal, hence, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint.

11.              Hence, with the above observations and discussion, the complaint is accepted to the extent that the complainants would be entitled to get the refund of amount deposited by them i.e. Rs.44,66,014/- alongwith  interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits within 60 days from receipt of copy of this order. In case, the amount is not paid within 60 days from the receipt of copy of this order, in that eventuality, complainants would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% p.a. for the defaulting period. Apart from this complainants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing physical and mental harassment and Rs.21,000/- for litigation expenses. With these observations, present complaint stands allowed.

 

 

September 21^st,  2018                       Manjula                      Ram Singh Chaudhary

                                                            Memb89er                  Judicial Member

                                                            Addl. Bench               Addl. Bench

R.K