Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1624/2017

KULDEEP VERMA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SUPERTECH LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

H.L. KAPUR

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :24.10.2017

Date of Decision :01.11.2017

COMPLAINT CASE NO.1624/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1. Shri Kuldeep Verma,

S/o. Shri Ram Kumar Verma

 

2. Smt. Deepika,

W/o. Shri Kuldeep Verma

 

Both at H.No.179 F,

Model Town Extn.,

Hissar, Haryana-125001.                                                                         ……Complainants

                                                                        Versus

 

1. M/s. Supertech Ltd.,

At 1114, Hemkunt Chambers,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

Also at:

 

Supertech House,

B-28-29, Sector-58,

Noida, U.P.-201307.

 

2. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.,

B-4, Sector-63,

Noida, U.P.-201301.                                                                       …..Opposite Party no.1.

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO.1625/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

1. Shri Sandeep Ghodela,

S/o. Shri Shoeochand Ram

 

2. Smt. Suman,

W/o. Shri Sandeep Ghodela

Both at H.No.54A, Gali No.4,

Tulshi Vihar, Azad Nagar,

Hissar, Haryana-125001.                                                             ……Complainants

                                                                        Versus

 

1. M/s. Supertech Ltd.,

At 1114, Hemkunt Chambers,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

Also at:

 

Supertech House,

B-28-29, Sector-58,

Noida, U.P.-201307.

 

2. India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.,

B-4, Sector-63,

Noida, U.P.-201301.                                                                       …..Opposite Party no.2.

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                     Yes/No

 

Present:           Shri  Ashish Kapoor, Counsel for the complainants.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

JUDGEMENT

 

          Both the complaints, both against the Supertech Ltd. and the India Bulls hereinafter referred to as OP no.1 and OP no.2 are taken up together, facts of both the cases being the same and the relief claimed being identical, and  are being disposed of by a common order taking CC 1624/17 as the lead case.

          Short question for adjudication in both the complaints is whether Shri Kuldeep Verma and Ms. Deepika Verma for short complainant no.1 and complainant no. 2 respectively  are entitled to the refund as prayed for.

          The complainants being lured by the advancement and advertisement of the OP no.1 entered into contract with them for purchasing a 965 sq. ft super area flat residential unit no.(R025G801504/Flat # 1504) in G8 Tower in the project called Eco Village – 3 situated at Plot No.GH-6, Sec-16B, Greater Noida 201303, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.). It was revealed  by the OP that they have already obtained necessary approval from the competent authority for completion of the project after obtaining the plot of land from the Greater Noida Authority.

          Possession of the flat was agreed to be handed over within the specified time of 36 months from the date of the execution of agreement dated 10.03.2015. The total sale consideration excluding service tax was of Rs.34,35,570/-. Schedule for the payment as mutually agreed to, is as per the dates indicated below:-

 

 

 

Instalments	Amount in Rs.
On Booking	3,43,557.00
Within 30 days of booking	20,61,342.00
On Ground Floor Slap	3,43,557.00
On 5th Floor Slab	3,43,557.00
On offer of possession	3,43,557.00
Total	34,35,570.00

 

          It was also further agreed, the flat having been purchased under the subvention scheme no pre EMI till offer of possession is to be paid. Since the complainant had made the payment under subvention scheme, India Bulls the Finance Company was also impleaded as respondent no.2. The loan allowed by Finance Company is to the extent of Rs.28,33,380/-. It was also agreed that for the purpose of maintenance or any other miscellaneous work, the OP no.1 shall continue to undertake the responsibility for a period of one year after the physical possession of the flat is handed over. It was also indicated in the agreement that in the event the OP is not able to hand over the physical possession of the flat within the agreed period they would be liable to pay the compensation as indicated in the agreement.

          So far so good.

          The complainant in their anxiety to know the progress of the construction in the project, had visited the site in August, 2017 but were shocked to learn that no concrete construction work or development have taken place and therefore the handing over of the possession of the flat within the agreed time seems almost impossible. As a consequence thereof the complainant had approached the OP no.1 to discuss the issue but could not get any satisfactory clarification or reply to his quarry in this behalf. Accordingly the complainant approached the OP no.1 for refund of the amount which request was not acceded to. Substantial payment has already been made with no possibility of any completion of the project. Having regard to these facts the complainant proceeded with their demand for the refund of the money but all their efforts made to discuss the issue with the officials of the OP no.1  could yield no results and  quarries of the complainant  remained unanswered.

          In these circumstances these two complaints have been filed before this Commission praying for the relief as under:-

(i)      Direct the OP/respondent no.1 to undertake for handing over handover the possession on the prescribed period while executing the agreement of the purchased 965 sq.ft. super area vide residential unit no.(R025G801504/Flat # 1504) in G4 Tower in the project called Eco Village – 3 situated at Plot No.GH-6, Sec-16B, Greater Noida 201303, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) along with 2 car parking and their club membership within the time as prescribed in the agreement.

And / or in alternative:

          Direct the respondent to return the amount of Rs.3,55,173/- which the complainants had paid while booking the vide residential Unit no.(R025G801504/Flat # 1504) in G8 Tower in the project called Eco Village – 3 situated at Plot No.GH-6, Sec-16B, Greater Noida 201303, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) along with 18% p.a. interest from the date of making payment till its realization.

(ii)     To grant compensation/ damages/ harassment amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- due to the mental harassment for delay in beginning of the construction of the above said flat to the complainant.

(iii)    To direct the respondent no.2 to not claim any EMI or any amount from the claimant and respondent no.1 to settle the loan and EMIs with respondent no.2.

(IV)    Compensation/ damages of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lacs only).

(v)     Rs.55,000/- as cost of these proceedings.

          Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper of the case be awarded in favour of the complainants and against the respondents.

          These two complaints were listed before us for admission hearing on 24.10.2017, when the ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments for the admission of the complaint. We have also perused the records of the case.

          On scrutiny of the records we notice that as per the agreement the construction of the flat is to be completed in 36 months from the date of the execution of the agreement namely 10.03.2015. Counting 36 months from the said date the OP is required to complete the construction in the project and hand over the possession by 10.03.2018, which date is yet to reach. Thus according to us this complaint is pre mature and it is not entertainable at this stage. Question of refund or otherwise would arise in the event the OP  fails to hand over the possession of the flat by the agreed date which eventuality would be seen only on the expiry of the said date, namely, 10.03.2018. We are yet to reach that date.

          Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we do not pass any order on the admission of the complaint being pre mature.

Ordered accordingly.

A copy of this order may be sent to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required.

          On these lines  the complaint no.1625 of 2017 filed by Shri Sandeep Ghodela also stands disposed of accordingly being pre mature.

The Registrar of this Commission  is requested to place on record a copy of this order in the complaint case file no.1625/2017 for records.

          Both  the files be consigned to records.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)