DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  693

                                                Instituted on:    14.12.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.05.2017

Harmeet Singh son of Gurdev Singh Walia, resident of Ahluwalia Patti, Village Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant.

                                Versus

N.N. Land Promoters, SCO 20, Time Tower City, Dhuri-Patiala Bypass, Sangrur, through its authorised signatory.               

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.

For OP                     :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1              Shri Harmeet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that in the month of April 2013 the OP distributed pamphlets showing launching of the first project of flats in District Sangrur, which was equipped with all the modern facilities like swimming pool, gym, 24 hours power back up, 23 hours security, list provision, 24 hour water, modular kitchen, cupboards, green park etc, whereby the OP agreed to provide possession of the flat on or before 30.4.2016 by all means.  As such, the complainant booked flat number 106 (i.3. 2 BHK flat) on the ground floor in building number 1  for a sum of Rs.23.60 Lacs and an agreement dated 27.6.2013 was executed for the same and further the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as basic price and the remaining amount was to be paid as per the construction.  Further case of the complainant is that he visited the project of the OP a number of times, but shocked to see that there was no construction as per the agreement. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of December, 2015, the officials of the OP visited the complainant and allured to deposit the amount for the first slab, as such he deposited Rs.3,69,000/-  vide cheque number 898271 dated 29.12.2015 with the OP, as the OP was bound to provide possession by 30.4.2016 and by this way, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,19,000/-, but no possession was given to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2016, he again visited the site and shocked to see that there was no construction. As such, the complainant requested the OP to refund the amount so deposited with the OP along with interest, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant  the amount of Rs.7,19,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In written reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had got booked a flat with the Op and it was assured that the flat will be delivered by 30.4.2016. But, the case of the Op is that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement.  It is further stated that the complainant cannot take the benefit of his own wrong doings.  The deposit of the amount by the complainant has not been denied by the OP.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of agreement, Ex.C-3 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 copy of brochure, Ex.C-7 copy of newspaper clipping, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18 copies of letters and postal receipts and Ex.OP-19 affidavit and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had got booked a flat number 106 for Rs.23.60 Lacs and paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- at the time of booking and further paid an amount of Rs.3,69,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-4 vide cheque number 898271 dated 29.12.2015.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of the agreement for sale of an apartment between the complainant and the OP and at the time of agreement it was agreed between the parties that the possession of the flat would be delivered to the complainant by 30.4.2016, but the grievance of the complainant is that since the OP failed to raise the construction as per the stipulated period, as such, he approached the OP, but no satisfactory reply was given and further failed to raise complete construction to deliver the possession of the flat by 30.4.2016.  The complainant has also produced on record the photographs taken on 10.3.2017 to show that the construction of the flat has not been completed till 10.3.2017 despite the fact a period of about one year has elapsed, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has alleged that since the OP failed to raise the construction of flats and to deliver the possession of the flat, the OP is liable to refund the amount so deposited along with interest thereon.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the complainant himself failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement and further failed to pay the amount as per the stipulated period.  But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OP as it is the Op who did not complete the construction work in time and even upto 10.3.2017 as there were number of flats to be constructed by the OP. There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why they did not complete the construction work of the flats.  We may mention that there is no case of the OP that they completed the complete construction of the flats, as the complainant has produced photographs Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 to show that on 10.3.2017 the construction was still incomplete.  There is no explanation from the side of the Op that why the construction of flats was not completed in time.   The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the builder like the OP should not be spared as the flat was booked and the amount was taken from the complainant by the OP, but despite that the construction was not completed on the project.  The learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Lakshmi Builder and another versus Kesavarapu Somesvvara Rao and another 2016(2) CPR 371 (NC), wherein it has been held that unscrupulous builders like appellants, who after taking substantial amount from the purchaser do not perform their part of obligation, should not be spared and a strong message is required to be sent to such type of builders.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Debraj Chatterjee and another versus M/s. Unitech Limited 2016(3) CPR 310 (NC), wherein the builder denied the possession of the flat, the Hon’ble National Commission held that the complainant is entitled to refund of the money along with appropriate compensation.The same is the position in the present case, as despite the fact the Op received an amount of Rs.7,19,000/- from the complainant, but the construction was not raised/completed in the stipulated time period and no possession of the flat was offered to the complainant during the agreed time period.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the OP is directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,19,000/- so deposited with the OP.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,19,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.  We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 2, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                     Member