Delhi

StateCommission

CC/6/2014

ARUNA NANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SUPERTECH BUILDERS - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                              Date of Arguments: 17.01.17

     Date of Decision: 24.01.17

 

Complaint No. 06/2014

 

In the matter of:

Aruna Nanda

W/o Late Romesh Nanda

R/o B C-1, Second Floor

Shalimar Bagh West

Delhi-110088.                                                           ………Complainant No. 1

 

Rummy Katyal

W/o Mr. Aman Katyal

14E Kamla Nagar

New Delhi-110007.                                                 …….Complainant No. 2

 

Archana Chabra

W/o Nitin Chhabra

BC-1, IInd Floor West

Shalimar Bagh

New Delhi-110088.                                                 ……..Complainant No. 3

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Supertech Limited

    Through its Managing Director

    Having Registered off at 1114, 11^th Floor

    Hemkund Chambers

    89, Nehru Place

    New Delhi-1100019.                                                       …….Opposite Party No. 1

 

2. M/s Settlers

    Air Force Canteen Complex

    Air Force Station

    Race Course

    New Delhi.                                                                             ……….Opposite Party No. 2

                      

CORAM

 

^{O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)}

^{1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes}

^{2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}             

                                                                                        JUDGEMENT

            The case of the complainant No. 1 is that she booked flat measuring 2275 sq. ft. under welfare for defence personnel/dependents scheme in project namely Eco village, 1, Greater Noida Extension of OP vide receipt No. 11524 on  02.04.2010. OP had promised to hand over possession of the flat within 18 months.  Complainant No. 2 and 3 are daughters of complainant No. 1.  Their name was added as second and third applicant in the booking form as complainant No. 1 is old lady. Complainant No. 1 opted and accepted down payment plan.  She paid Rs. 39,52,812/-.  OP 1 allotted Unit No.G-1/03 on Raksha Tower  in Eco village 1, Greater Noida Extension.

2.        On 12.11.2010 OP 1 of its own transferred booking to unit No. G-209 area of which was 1750 sq.ft. and which was situated in Eco-3, Greater Noida.  The consideration was Rs. 41,68,249/- on 21.02.2011. OP 1 further changed the unit to G-208 with area of 1750 sq. ft. but this time the consideration was enhanced to Rs. 42,79,965/- .

3.        OP 1 further demanded Rs. 1,45,954/- which complainant No. 1 deposited by cheque.  OP 1 changed unit to No. 260 in Block G and demanded Rs. 44,27,927/-.

4.        Complainant was forced to sign allotment letter on 31.05.2011  under the threat that if she did not sign the same, amount already deposited would be returned back after deduction.  On 3^rd May 2013 OP No. 1 sent a letter providing alternative offer of unit No. 205 in Block G at Oxford Square, Greater Nodia area of which was 1964 sq. ft.  On visit by complainant No. 1 in the office of OP 1,  she was told that it was the same flat which was previously offered as unit No. G-207 and there was a change in numbering of units.  The complainants told OP 1 if it was the same unit how the area was changed from 1750 sq. yds. To 1964 sq. yds. OP 1 asked her to go to the consumer court.  Hence this complaint for directions to OP 1 to restore original booking of flat No. G-1/003 on Tower Raksha, Eco-village 1, Greater Noida Extension with  super area of 2275 sq. ft., to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for loss, mental agony, harassment and compensation, Rs. 50,000/- as litigation charges, interest @ 18% per annum till delivery of possession.  

5.        OP 1 filed WS raising preliminary objection that complaint is devoid of cause of action because the complaint was filed against M/s Super Tech Infra Structure Ltd which is group company of M/s Supertech Ltd.  Complainant purchased flat from Supertech Ltd. And not Supertech Infra Structure Ltd. The complaint involves complicated questions of facts ad law which require evidence and cannot be gone into summary procedure under consumer protection Act.  Complainant themselves opted for flat No. 207 in G-Tower at Oxford Square situated at Eco village-III, GH-06, Sector-16B, Greater Noida in May, 2011. There was arbitration clause in agreement dated 31.05.2011 and complainant is bound by the same.  On merits they repeated the same defence.

6.        The complainant moved an application for amendment in memo of parties for correcting the name of OP from M/s Supertech  Infra Structure Ltd to Supertech Ltd.  The said application has not been disposed of as yet. Any how there is no reply to the said application.  Amendment sought for is formal in nature.  Hence the application is allowed.

7.        Complainants filed rejoinder and affidavit of complainant No. 1 in their evidence.

8.        On the other hand OP filed affidavit of Shri Arvind Kumar, Sr. Manager (Legal) in its evidence.

9.        I have gone through the material and heard the arguments.  There is frequent change in the flat booked by the complainant, area of the flat and cost of the flat. That too without the consent of the complainant. OP 1 has no right to unilaterally change the number of the flat, size and price. While decreasing area   OP enhanced the price.  At the most OP 1 obtained signature of the complainant for change of flat only  once on 31.05.2011.

10.      During the course of argument counsel for the complainant submitted that OP was to deliver possession within 18 months from April, 2010 which expired in October, 2011.  Complainant cannot be forced to accept the possession now in 2017.  So complainant is interested in refund of amount with reasonable interest.

11.      Counsel for OP submitted that OP has invested lot of amount in the project.  The complainant has changed her mood because there is slump in the real estate.  According to her OP has already offered the flat on 05.02.16.  She filed copy of photographs showing number of persons living in the flat.  She submitted that Ops are not in a position to refund the amount due to slump in the market.  Further according to her complainants have prayed for possession of the flat and not refund of the amount in complaint. 

12.      After considering the rival submission I feel that complainants cannot be forced to accept possession  after about seven years.  There is no fault on the part of complainant. If the OP had not been able to complete its project within time stipulated, it has to suffer and none else.

13.      In view of the above discussion I find that OP is deficient in service.  The complaint is allowed and OP 1 is directed to refund Rs. 40,98,766/- (Rs. 39,52,812/- + 1,45,954/-) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till date of refund.  The order will be complied with within three months. No separate compensation can be awarded as interest itself is by way of compensation. Otherwise there is no provision in consumer protection Act for grant of interest.

14.      Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER(JUDICIAL)