DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:360 of 2011] Date of Institution : 10.08.2011 Date of Decision :11.05.2012 --------------------------------------- Sh. Sonal Khurana son of Sh. J. S. Khurana resident of House No.361/1-B, Ram Nagar, Behind D.A.V College, Ambala City. ---Complainant. VERSUS 1. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Company Limited, Regd. Office 9, Kastoorba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 through its Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Company Limited, SCO No.1098-1099, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. R. K. Singla, Advocatefor the complainant. Sh.. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Sonal Khurana has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following directions to the OPs:- i) To handover the physical possession of the flat in question; ii) To pay interest @24% per annum on Rs.8,25,188/- during the period from 06.10.2005 to 07.09.2010. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment; iv) To pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation; v) To pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the complaint; vi) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur approached him and represented that OPs are going to construct a huge apartments to be named as “Wellington Heights” at TDI City, Phase-I I Sector 117-118, SAS Nagar, Mohali. They further assured the complainant that the said tower will be constructed very soon. They also told the complainant that they have already booked a flat in the said apartment. However, they expressed their desire to sell their rights to the complainant. In view of the assurances mentioned above, the complainant agreed to purchase their rights in the said Tower. So, he moved an application to this effect along with all the required documents to the OPs. OPs agreed to it. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur against the amount already paid by them to the OPs. Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur executed a Receipt/Agreement to Sell dated 19.04.2006 (Annexure C-14) to this effect. It has further been pleaded that on 07.09.2010, OPs allotted a Flat bearing No.A-0404, Floor No.4, Tower-A, Type & Area 2 BHK to the complainant. He deposited another sum of Rs.5,25,188/- vide receipts (Annexures C-2 to C-5) at different intervals. It has further been pleaded that at the time of booking the flat, OPs had assured that they would construct the flats within 3 years. However, according to the complainant, the flats have not been completed till date and OPs have failed to handover the physical possession of the flat in question to him. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he served a legal notice dated 12.02.2011 upon the OPs requesting them to handover the physical possession of the flat in question but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OPs, a specific preliminary objection as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum has been raised. According to OPs, the price of the residential flat allotted to the complainant is Rs.21,08,960/-, which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, which is Rs.20 Lacs. However, on merits, it has been admitted that Flat No.4, Tower A, Type & Area 2 BHK was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 07.09.2010. According to the OPs, an Agreement dated 06.08.2010 was also executed between them and the complainant and Clause 6.1 of the said agreement contemplates to complete the construction of the building/apartment within a period of 3 years from the date of execution of the agreement, subject to force majeure and all just exceptions, as contained in the said clause. Thus, according to OPs, the complaint out rightly deserves dismissal being premature. OPs have further pleaded that up-till 03.11.2010, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.8,18,020/- towards the sale consideration of the flat in question and thereafter, she has not made any further payment. It is pleaded that of the construction work at the site is in full swing and the possession of the flat will be delivered to the complainant as per Clause 6.1 of the agreement dated 06.08.2010, vide which the entitlement of possession arises after 05.08.2012 only. According to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The first relief sought by the complainant is for the delivery of possession of the flat in question. It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure C-15 is the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement dated 06.08.2010 executed between the complainant and the OPs. As per Clause 6.1 of this agreement, the possession of the flat is to be delivered within 3 years from the date of execution of this agreement. So, the possession of the flat in question is to be delivered by the OPs on or before 06.08.2013. In these circumstances, the present complaint seeking aforesaid relief is premature. 6. Faced with this situation, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had purchased the rights of Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur on payment of Rs.3 Lacs vide Receipt/Agreement to Sell (Annexure C-14). It has further been argued that at the time of registration of the flat, the OPs had agreed to issue letter of allotment within 9 months. It was also agreed by the OPs that in case the allotment is not made within 9 months, OPs shall be liable to pay interest @10% per annum from the date of deposit of the registration fee till the date of allotment of the flat. Our attention has been drawn to Clause (c) as incorporated in the Advance Registration Form for a Flat (Annexure R-1), which reads as under: - “(c) That in the event your offer of allotment for a flat is made to me after 9 months, a simple interest @10% p.a. shall be paid to me/us for the period beyond 9 months on the amount paid by me/us up to the date the said offer of allotment is made.” 7. Relying on the above said clause of Advance Registration Form (Annexure R-1), which is a document in between the OPs and Mr. Amandeep Singh Chalokiya and Mrs. Hardeep Kaur, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently that as the allotment letter was not issued within 9 months, so, the complainant is entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till 07.09.2010, on which date the flat was allotted to him. It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, the relief sought by the complainant is for the delivery of possession of the flat in question and not for the refund of the amount paid by the complainant. So, the complainant is insisting for the delivery of the possession and not for the refund of the amount.. In the case titled Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank reported as SC. & National Commission Consumer Law Cases 2005-2008 Page 631, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para No.13 as under: - “13. As already noticed, where the grievance is one of delay in delivery of possession and the Development Authority delivers the house during the pendency of the complaint at the agreed price, and such delivery is accepted by the allottee-complainant, the question of awarding any interest on the price paid by him from the date of deposit to date of delivery of possession, does not arise. The allottee who had the benefit of appreciation of price of the house, is not entitled to interest on the price paid. In this case, the 11 houses were delivered in 1997 at the agreed prices (Rs.5.5 lacs per corner HIG house and Rs.4.75 lacs per other HIG houses). In view of it, the order of the Commission awarding interest at 18% per annum on the price of the houses is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Whether respondent is entitled to any compensation?” 8. The ratio of the case cited above is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as the complainant is insisting for the delivery of possession of the flat in question. So, he is not entitled to the interest because he will have the benefit of appreciation of price of the flat in dispute. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the complainant has no force. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the present complaint, the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 11th May, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
[Complaint Case No:360 of 2011] ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 09.05.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 11.05.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
