Delhi

StateCommission

C-169/2011

RAJENDRA KUMAR GANG & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL MALHOTRA, SONALI MALHOTRA , AMIT SANDUJA

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                            Date of Decision: 29/07/2015

Consumer Complaint No. 169/2011

In the matter of:

1.      Shri Rajendra Gang

R/o:414, Katju Nagar,

Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh

Pincode-457001

 

2.      Smt. Anshu Garg

        W/o Sh. Rajendra Gang,

R/o:414, Katju Nagar,

Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh

Pincode-457001

                                               

THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

MRS. ANURADHA UPPAL

W/o Shri Manoj Uppal

R/o 22/57-58, 1^st Floor,

West Patel Nager,

New Delhi                                                          Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

M/s PURI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

“Natureville”, W-82-A, GreaterKailash-II

New Delhi-110001

 

ALSO AT:

 

4,5,6 Ground Floor

Tolstoy House,

Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi                                                             Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

SH N P KAUSHIK                              -                  Member (Judicial)

SH. S.C. JAIN                          -                  Member

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

        Facts in brief of the Complaint are that the complainant Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gang and his wife Ms. Anshu Garg entered into a flat buyer’s agreement with Ms. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., 4,5,6 Grounds Floor, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the ‘OP’)on 11^th June 2009. The total sale consideration of the flat was Rs. 61,21,253/-.  The complainant paid in all an amount of Rs. 42,12,023.50 by 15^th June 2010 as per schedule of payment.

       Grievance of the complainant is that he received a letter dated 20^th June 2010 from the OP raising a demand of Rs. 4,67,140/- for the increased super area and car parking charges. Complainant replied to the letter vide reply dated 2^nd August 2010 raising a protest against the aforesaid demand.  OP vide its letter dated 5^th August 2010 reiterated its stand. Submission of the complainant is that they had been receiving threatening e-mails from the OP thereafter.  Upon this, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 27/1/2011 to the OP calling upon the OP to withdraw its demand of Rs. 4,67,140/-.  The complainant also asked the OP to refund Rs. 42,12,023.50 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.  The OP replied to the legal notice vide reply dated 27/2/2011.  Vide said reply, OP informed the complainants that they were not entitled to refund of the whole of the amount of Rs. 61,21,253/-. On the contrary, they were simply entitled to Rs. 25,45,917/- and that too, after the sale of the flat in question.  

       Complainant filed the present complaint praying for refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @18% p.a. compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs and litigation charges of Rs. 50,000/- have also been prayed for. OP after putting in appearance filed his written version. OP took a plea that the complainant has not abided by  the terms of contract by not responding to the demands made by the OP. OP has referred to his reminders dated 1^st June 2010, 7^th June 2010 and 14^th June 2010.  In response to the contention of increase in the super area, the OP submitted that as per agreement, the measurement of the flat could increase/decrease to the extent of 10%.  OP further submitted that the response of the complainant to its demand of Rs. 4,67,140/- was baseless and contrary to the agreed terms.

       Parties have placed on record their affidavits towards evidence. OP started absenting himself from the proceedings thereafter. Vide order dated 28^th August 2014, OP was proceeded against ex-parte. It may be mentioned here that the OP has placed on record his affidavit towards evidence.  

       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant Sh. Amit Sanduja advocate at length. 

       As per ‘flat buyer’s agreement’ dt. 11^th June 2009, OP was required to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement.  Said period expired on 10^th June 2012. Perusal of the affidavit filed by the OP towards evidence (para 9) shows that the flat in question was not ready for possession till 12^th December 2012 i.e. the date of filing of affidavit.  Clearly, the OP has committed breach of contract. It is a case of ‘unfair trade practice.’

In the circumstances, we direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

 

a.    to refund the amount of Rs. 42,12,023.50 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit.

b.    to pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainants.

c.    to pay to the complainant the litigation charges of Rs. 25,000/-.

 

All the abovesaid payments shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of 60 days from today failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount accruing after the expiry of the said period of 60 days from today.

 

File be sent to the Record Room. 

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDIUCIAL)

 

 

 

(S C  JAIN)

MEMBER