Haryana

StateCommission

CC/289/2017

VIVEK KAURA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

SUBHASH AHUJA

26 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.289 of  2017

Date of the Institution:09.05.2017

Date of Decision: 26.03.2018

 

Vivek Kaura, age 34 years, s/o Sh. Sh.Sardari Lal H.No.2605, Mohalla Kauria, Raikot, Ludhiana now at House No.160 G, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Regd. Office 6^th Floor, Arunachal Build 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.

2.      Incharge Site Office, Parsvnath Developers Ltd., at Parsvnath Royale, Sector 20 Panchkula.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant.

None for the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that  he booked 3 bed room flat with the opposite parties by making a payment of Rs.15,54,720/-   duly acknowledged in the flat buyer agreement dated 09.06.2011. He was allotted the residential unit/flat No.T4-G-04 in the proposed housing project.  The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.62,18,875/-. He paid the installments as per the  statement of accounts dated 02.07.2014, total payment of Rs.36,80,492/- made against the aforesaid flat by the original allottee.  Another payment of Rs.9,73,312/- was paid on 13.06.2015 and another sum of Rs.9.50/- lacs was aid against receipt No.S0134276, thus total payment of Rs.56,03,804/- has been made by him. The balance amount of Rs.6.15/-  lacs was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of flat.   As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the flat was to be completed within a period of 36 months and the grace period of 6 months.  After booking of the flat, the construction activity of the O.Ps was stopped due to global recession . The act and conduct  of opposite parties clearly establish unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

2.                The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps. by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which O.Ps. stated that  initially the flat was purchased by one Mr.Rajesh Jain in the project and thereafter complainant purchased the flat from Mr.Rajesh Jain.  flat buyer agreement was executed between complainant and opposite party No.1 on 09.06.2011.  The complainant was persistent defaulter made numerous defaults in making timely payments towards the booking. Due to global recession, the delay of the project is caused. O.Ps. vide their letter dated 14.07.2015 specifically informed the complainant about the status of the project.  They only admitted that complainant has booked a 3 bed room flat against the payment of Rs.15,54,720/-.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and closed his evidence.

4.                No oral or documentary evidence led on behalf of the O.Ps.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Subhash Ahuja, the  learned counsel for the complainant has heard at length.  With his kind assistance the 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 reply filed thereto including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this court as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he has already deposited alongwith the interest. 

7.                As per the submissions made by Sh.Subhash Ahuja, the  learned counsel for the complainant and after perusal of the entire record as well as appreciation of the evidence during the prosecution of the complaint.  It is true that the O.Ps. have launched a housing scheme under the name and style of  “Parsvnath  Royale” in the area of District Panchkula.  The complainant had opted to book a flat and initially, had deposited an amount of Rs.15,54,720/-.  As per the agreement, the  delivery of the possession of the unit was delivered within the period of 36 months.  As per the details of the payment, the complainant had paid sum of Rs.56,03,804/- against the receipt  issued by the O.Ps. on  02.07.2014 and two receipts vide dated 10.06.2015 respectively.  In order to prove the amount, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record  Ex.C-2 C-3, C-4, which is receipt of Rs.56,03,804/-  in total has been issued by the O.Ps.  So, it is crystal clear that complainant paid Rs.56,03,804/- to O.Ps., so  O.Ps. are liable to pay the same alongwith interest.

8.                As per the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 (months).   Still the period of 36 months had already expired and while advancing the arguments, it has been fairly conceded on behalf of the O.Ps. that the project is yet to be completed.  The possession cannot be delivered under these constraint circumstances the O.Ps. cannot be allowed to utilize or to enjoy the hardened money deposited by the complainant for getting the unit booked for their livelihood. It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that they would collect their hardened money from the investors and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hardened money is not completed.  The complainant had to wait more than period of 36 months for delivery of possession.  In such like matters, the court has to be callous enough and the O.Ps. are to be dealt with severe hands  and cannot be allowed to mis-utilizing the funds of the investors or to have  a mis-directions of funds, which ultimately has been resulted into non-completion of the project and ultimately, it is the complainant  or the investors who had to suffer.  In such circumstances, it is evidently clear that complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.56,03,804/-  to O.Ps. and as such the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount in all propositions, the possession of the dwelling unit cannot be delivered and moreover a period of more than three years have already been expired, hence the O.P Nos.1 and 2 are directed to make a payment of Rs.56,03,804/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum  from the date of respective deposits and till realization.     Hence this question is answered in affirmative.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period of three months, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 18% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled of Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation of mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/-  as litigation charges.    The complaint is accordingly allowed. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

 

March    26th, 2019                                        Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                                        Judicial Member                                                                                                                   Addl.Bench               

S.K.