JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       Vide this common order, I propose to dispose of complaint nos. 109  of 2015 and 1374 of 2015 since both the complaints relate to same project of the opposite party, namely, Parsavnath Privilege Project at Greater Noida which was launched in September, 2007.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainants in both the complaints are allotees of the flats in the said project and executed all the necessary documents including Flat-Buyer Agreement. The opposite party has not disputed these facts.  It is also not disputed that complainants in both the complaints had also paid consideration amount towards the construction of the subject flats and the possession was to be  handed over within 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction as per Clause 10 (a) of the agreement.  In complaint no. 109 of 2015,  the complainants had paid a sum of Rs. 50,65,738/- out of total consideration amount of Rs.52,86,750/- on different dates and in consumer complaint no. 1374 of 2015, the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.56,63,728/- out of total consideration of Rs.59,99,070/- on different dates.  This fact is also not disputed by the opposite party. 

3.       It is the admitted fact on record that till date, the opposite party has not given the possession of the subject flats to the complainants and they have also failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period. 

4.       The opposite party had contested the claim of the complainants in both the complaints and have taken the plea that complainants had claimed refund with interest @ 24% p.a. and it is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement.  They took the plea that delay had occurred due to recession in the real estate sector and this fact was communicated to the complainants herein.  It is claimed that there was no deficiency in service.

5.       The parties had led their evidences. I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. 

6.       It is argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that it is a covered case passed by this Commission in Consumer Case No. 263 of 2015 titled Aditya Laroia Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., relating to the same project of the opposite party, since this Commission has held that opposite party had failed to give the possession of the flats to its allottees within the stipulated period, it was deficiency in service on their part and had ordered the refund of the entire deposited amount alongwith simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date on each payment till the date on which the said refund alongwith compensation in the form of such interest.  It is argued that this order was challenged by the opposite party before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 12815 of 2016 titled Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Vs. Aditya Laroia and there the opposite party had reached to a settlement with the complainant therein and decree passed by this Commission was deemed to  have been satisfied and with this observation, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  It is submitted that this shows that findings qua deficiency in service in relation to the said project has attained finality.  It is further submitted that two Member Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No. 107 of 2015 titled Brig ( Retd.) Rakesh Dhir & Anr. Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and other connected matters, which also relates to same project, has also held that failure to give possession within the stipulated period by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and passed the following order

“For the reasons stated as above, as the Consumer Complaint No.107 of 2015 is taken as lead case, all the four Complaints i.e. C.C. No. 107 of 2015, C.C. No. 108 of 2015, C.C. No. 110 of 2015 and C.C. No. 1252 of 2015 are disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the amount which each of the Complainants paid them along with simple interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainants in each case. Payments shall be made by the Opposite Party within 3 months from the date of this order.” 

7.       It is prayed that similar order be passed in these complaints as well since it is a covered matter by previous pronouncement.

8.       Counsel for the opposite party has not disputed that these complaints are also covered by the judgement of this Commission  in Consumer Case No. 107 of 2015 titled Brig ( Retd.) Rakesh Dhir & Anr. Vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. and other connected matters.  Even otherwise, admittedly till the filing of the complaints, opposite party has failed to give possession of the subject flats to the complainants herein.   This amounts to deficiency in service. The receipt of deposits by the complainants of the sum of Rs. 50,65,738 in consumer complaint no. 109 of 2015 and Rs.56,63,728/- in consumer complaint no. 1374 of 2015 is also  not disputed. 

9.       In view of the above discussion, while allowing both the complaints, following directions are issued:

(i).     In Consumer Complaint No. 109 of 2015, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.50,65,738/- ( Rupees Fifty Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight only) alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund.

(ii).    In Consumer Complaint No. 1374 of 2015, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.56,63,728/-( Rupees Fifty Six Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund.

(iii).   The opposite party shall pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of the litigation to the complainants of each complaint.

(iv).   The amount shall be paid within three months from the date of this order.