BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 872 of 2009

Date of Institution :  19.06.2009

Date of  Decision   :  03.05.2010

Hitendra Singh Khair, C/o Powergrid, 2^nd Floor, SCO No. 413-14, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Penta Homes Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 30, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

PRESENT: Complainant in person.

         Sh.Ramesh Goel, Adv. for the OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

        The present complaint has been by Sh. Hitendra Singh Khair, claiming that the OP be directed to pay compensation for delayed delivery of possession of flat, along with interest @20% w.e.f. 10.3.2009, till the date of making payment, besides compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation.

        The case made out by the Complainant is as under.

        The Complainant had purchased a residential Flat No. 202, D-1 Block, at VIP Penta Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur from the OP, through Sale Agreement dated 02.01.2007. He made all the payments for the flat well in time upon receipt of requisite demand letter from the OP. As per the Sale Agreement, the OP was to hand over the flat in the month of April, 2007, as per Clause 16 of the Agreement. A grace period of 90 days only was allowed for delivery as per Clause No. 17 of Agreement.

2]      The Complainant has alleged that the OP actually handed over the flat to him only on 9.3.2009. This was after a delay of 19 months 9 days after considering the allowable grace period. He alleges that as per Clause 17 of Sale Agreement, a compensation @ Rs.5 per sq ft. per month is duly payable to the Complainant by the OP for any delay beyond the completion schedule of the agreement. This amount works out to be Rs.86,033/-. He made various requests for release of this payment to him, but the OP has never made any payment to the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that the OP was fully aware at the time of signing of sale agreement that the project was already behind schedule and possession would not be given on time. The Complainant has also served a legal notice upon the OP, demanding payment of Rs.1,07,500/- towards the rent paid by the Complainant during the period of delay in handing over the flat or compensation amount of Rs.86,033/-, along with Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment meted out to him at the hands of OP.

3]      OP in their reply have stated that the Complainant got a flat booked in Penta Homes on 29.12.2006. Agreement for sale was signed on 2.1.2007. No specific date for the delivery of the possession of the flat was mentioned in the agreement and further the payment of installments were linked with the stage of construction and no extra amount whatsoever was ever demanded from the Complainant till the same became due as per construction plan. After receipt of the payment as per the payment Schedule, the Complainant was delivered the possession of the flat on 9.3.2009, vide possession letter, copy of which is at Annexure OP-4.

4]      They have stated that the delay in completion of the project was due to a dispute with the construction agency employed by the OP and non-availability of cement etc. Further, delay also crept in due to the unforeseen circumstances like obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the Govt. Authorities, for which the OP cannot be held responsible in any manner whatsoever.   

5]      We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.

6]      It is a fact that the OPs had floated a Scheme for construction of Multistoried buildings and they were to give delivery of the apartment to the allottees under normal conditions on or before 7.4.2007. In case, there was delay in delivery of possession, they would be liable to pay compensation to the allottees @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month, after allowing a grace period of 90 days. However, when we actually look at the facts of the case, the allottee entered into an agreement with them only in January, 2007, when the construction was already underway. He was never asked by the OP to make immediate payment of the full amount. Both the parties have admitted that payment was made by the Complainant for the flat in question as per construction linked plan. He was at all times fully aware of the stage of construction. He must have seen that it was not possible for the OP to give delivery of the flat within 03 months. The Complainant seems to be trying to avail the facility as per Clause 17 of the Agreement to generate compensation from the OPs, which seems unreasonable even on the face of it. He had not paid the full amount to them on 7.4.2007, and they had not even troubled him for immediate payment. The construction has taken place in its regular course without reasonable delays, and as soon as the flats were ready, possession has been handed over to him. Now, if he comes to the Court, demanding compensation for delay, it is ridiculous and undesirable.

7]      In view of above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

8]      Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03.05.2010                                       Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                            Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’