Haryana

StateCommission

CC/828/2017

MEGHA MIDHA AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SATISH KUMAR

15 Feb 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:19.12.2017

                Date of final hearing:15.02.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:15.02.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.828 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Megha Midha d/o Sh. Radhe Shyam, aged 20 years, resident of House No.3046, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

2.      Radhe Shyam s/o Sh. Diwan Chand, resident of House No.3046, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. 

                                                                                      .….Complainants

Through counsel Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., through its director having its site office behind Society No.111 at Sector 20, Panchkula.

          Second Address:

          M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., through its director having      registered office at 6^th floor, Arunanchal Building, 19,          Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

….Opposite party No.1

          Through counsel Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate

 

2.      M/s Samar Estate Pvt. Ltd., through its director having its registered office at S.C.O No.254, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                                                            ….Opposite party No.2

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for opposite party No.1.

Presence of opposite party No.2 already dispensed with.

 

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainants booked for a flat with the opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.8,90,100/- as booking amount. The opposite parties allotted flat No.T 7 –602, 6^th Floor, Tower T 7, Parsvnath Royale, Sector-20, Panchkula to the complainants. Flat Buyer Agreement was also executed between the complainants and the opposite parties on 23.08.2011. The complainants had paid total amount of Rs.38,63,611/- to the opposite parties against a total sale consideration of Rs.57,85,000/-.  As per the agreement, the opposite parties were required to complete the construction of the flat within a period of 36 months of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat was located with a grace period of six months. It is alleged that at the time of execution of Flat Buyer Agreement, the opposite parties assured the complainants that the possession of the flat in question will be handed over to the complainants within a period of three years. It is submitted that till date the complainant had paid the 66.77% of the total sale consideration amount but the opposite parties had failed to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the complainants. Complainants made several requests to the opposite parties either to give the possession or to return their hard earned money but the opposite parties did not consider their genuine request. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund of Rs.38,63,611/-  which was deposited by them alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of  respective deposits, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.31,000/- as compensation on account of litigation charges.

2.                Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 appeared and the written statement was filed, wherein the opposite party No. 1 admitted that the complainant had applied for a flat in its project and flat No.T 7 –602, 6^th Floor, Tower T 7, Parsvnath Royale, Sector-20, Panchkula was allotted to them. It is also admitted that agreement in this regard was executed on 23.08.2011 between the parties. It is denied that possession of flat in question was to be delivered within a period of 36 months. However, delivery of possession was depended on the circumstances based on climate, labour etc.  It is submitted that the super structure of tower in which the Flat of the complainant is situated had been completed and opposite party is working towards completion of project. It is admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.38,63,611 /- to the opposite parties. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.                Service of opposite party No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 29.06.2018 being performa party.

4.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainants, counsel for complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A of Megha Midha and affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Radhey Shyam vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and also rely upon the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the same.

5.                On the other hand, evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by court vide order dated 13.09.2022 on account of opposite party No.1 not recording its evidence despite availing five opportunities nor paying costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed for not recording the evidence.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Pardeep Solath, learned counsel for the complainants and by Mr. Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for opposite party No.1. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                As per the basic averments taken in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount which they had already paid to OPs, alongwith the interest or not? 

8.                Undisputedly, the complainants had booked a flat in the project of opposite parties who had allotted Flat No.T 7 –602, 6^th Floor, Tower T 7, Parsvnath Royale, Sector-20, Panchkula to them. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.38,63,611/- to the opposite parties (Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7) . It is also undisputed that the Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the complainants and Ops on 23.08.2011(Ex.C-2), according to which possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 36 months of commencement of construction. It is also not disputed that construction work was not completed and opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question despite the fact that the complainant kept waiting for several years. Since, the opposite parties did not complete the construction work till date, there was no possibility of delivery or possession of the flat within the stipulated period, therefore, the complainants were justified in seeking refund of his deposited amount. In view of the above, it is held that the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainants alongwith interest and compensation. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

9.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,63,611/- (Rs. Thirty eight lacs sixty three thousand and six hundred eleven only) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization.  In case, there is delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainants would be further entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainants are also entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs Only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Thirty 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 attracted.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on:15 ^th February, 2023

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                                            (President)

           

 

 

 Manjula

(Member)     

M.S.