Haryana

StateCommission

A/867/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.867 of 2015

Date of the Institution:12.10.2015

Date of Decision: 30.11.2016

 

Parsvnath Developers Ltd., A company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered Office at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahadara Metro Station, Shahadara, Delhi-110032.

(Through its  Authorized Signatory Mr. R.C Gupta, General Manager)

                                                                                                .….Appellant

Versus

 

Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, R/o House No.529 A, Ward No.28, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                   

 

Present:-    Mr.A.S. Khara, proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr. A.K. Goyal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, MEMBER:

This appeal of appellant-opposite party is directed against the order dated 12.08.2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) in complaint No.277 of 2014.

2.      One Ms. Shilpa Mahajan booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Parsvnath City Sonepat developed by appellant-respondents at the rate of Rs.3500/- per sq. yards and paid total sum of Rs.5,25,000/- from time to time to appellant. The said Shilpa Mahajan transferred/sold the said plot to the complainant on 12.11.2008.  He requested them so many times to hand over the physical possession of the plot to him, but all in vain. He also served legal notice dated 03.09.2014, but OP did not reply. Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      Opposite parties, contested complaint by filing reply, they submitted that on 04.06.2014, Shilpa Mahajan made application for advance registration of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in upcoming next project of the company. She deposited the amount time to time with them and thereafter she requested them to transfer the rights of plot vide letter dated 12.11.2008. Due to recession in the real estate industry, they were unable to allot the plot in favour of complainant. Although the OPs at all time assured the complainant that for the delayed period beyond nine months, the complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% on the advance amount paid by him. He is not entitled for any amount of compensation from them as they were liable only to extent as stipulated under the advance registration form dated 04.06.2014 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      On the appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence of the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to allot the plot to the complainant and to receive their balance amount, if any, from the complainant. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that the appellants were unable to allot the plot in favour of complainant. However, they all time assured complainant for the delayed period beyond nine months, complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% on the advance amount paid by him. Complainant is not entitled for any amount of compensation from the appellant as they are liable only to extent as stipulated under the advance registration from dated 04.06.2014.

8.      Learned counsel for respondent argued that Rs.52,000/- are lying deposited with the appellant and despite this the appellant has failed to hand over the physical possession of the said plot the respondent-complainant.

9.      We have gone through the entire relevant material available on the file very carefully and it appears that the appellant has failed to allot any plot to the respondent despite the fact that they have received an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- from the complainant. Appellant failed to issue any letter to the respondent regarding allotment of plot. It amounts to grave deficiency in service on the part of appellant. Impugned order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned District Forum, Sonepat is well reasoned and based on law and facts. So, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 30th,  2016

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

 

R.K.