Haryana

StateCommission

A/1003/2015

APEX BUILTECH PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH MALIK - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT KUMAR GOYAL

01 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No: 1003 & 1100 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.11.2015 & 22.12.2015

Date of Decision: 01.03.2016

 

Appeal No.1003 of 2015

 

Apex Buildtech, Private Limited 514, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, Delhi.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Om Parkash Malik s/o Sh. Maha Singh Malik, Resident of House No.25/419, Arya Nagar, Pathar Wali Gali, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

Appeal No.1100 of 2015

 

Om Parkash Malik s/o Sh. Maha Singh Malik, Resident of House No.25/419, Arya Nagar, Pathar Wali Gali, Sonipat.

Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Apex Buildtech, Private Limited 514, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, Delhi.

Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for Apex Buildtech-Opposite Party.

                             Shri R.S. Malik, Advocate for Om Parkash Malik-Complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.1003 of 2015 and 1100 of 2015 having arisen out of the order dated October 16^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.283 of 2014.

2.      Om Parkash Malik-Complainant, booked a flat with Apex Buildtech Private Limited-Opposite Party in their project known as ‘Apex Green’ Sonipat, on September 21^st, 2008.  Flat Buyer Agreement (Exhibit C-23) was executed between the complainant and the opposite party. He was allotted flat No.D-13, First Floor, Block-D, having approximate area 1915 sq. ft. The basic price of the flat was Rs.30,16,125/-. The complainant paid Rs.4.00 lacs at the time of booking of the flat vide receipt Exhibit C-2. The remaining price was to be paid in instalments as per Payment Plan Option-1. The construction of the flat was to be completed within a period of thirty six months of commencement of construction of the particular block in which the flat was located, with a grace period of six months, on receipt of sanction of building plans/revised building plans and approvals of the concerned authorities. The complainant in all paid Rs.33,49,786/- as on 22.12.2012. The opposite party failed to deliver possession of flat within the stipulated period. It was also alleged that the opposite party raised illegal demand of Rs.9,50,305/-. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite party contested complaint by filing reply raising plea that the total cost of the flat was Rs.39,50,850/-. The amount deposited by the complainant in the form of External Development Charges (EDC), Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) and other Government dues, was deposited with the concerned departments. It was pleaded that a demand of Rs.9,50,305/- was never raised, rather Rs.48,399/- were demanded as service tax. The possession was to be delivered after clearing all kinds of dues and 5% was due towards the complainant. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint observing as under:-

“……….in our view, definitely the complainant is entitled to get interest from the respondent. The respondent himself has admitted that the basic cost of the flat is Rs.2415061/- (Rs.3349786-934725=2416061/-). Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.2416061/- w.e.f. 22.10.2012 till the delivery of the possession of the flat to the complainant. However, if 5% amount is due towards the complainant, the complainant is directed to pay the same to the respondent. The respondent is further directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousands for rendering deficient services, for harassment and further to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.”

5.      Aggrieved of the order, the opposite party has filed appeal No.1003 of 2015 for setting aside the order and complainant has filed appeal No.1100 of 2015 for enhancement of compensation.

6.      Indisputably, flat was booked on September 21^st, 2008 and allotted to the complainant by the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that Flat Buyer Agreement dated April 22^nd, 2009 (Exhibit C-23) was executed by the complainant and the opposite party. As per Clause 10(a) of the agreement, the construction of the flat was to be completed within a period of thirty six months of the commencement of construction of the particular block, however, with a grace period of six months. Till the filing of the complaint the possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant.

7.      Though, the opposite party has not given any date of sanction of building plan, however, treating the date of execution of agreement as the date of sanction of building plan, the period expired on 22^nd October, 2012. The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.24,15,061/- from 22.10.2012 till the delivery of possession.

8.      Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the District Forum has rightly directed the opposite party to pay interest on the deposited amount for the delayed period in delivering possession.

9.      So far as the prayer of the complainant for enhancement of compensation, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

10.    In view of the above, both the appeals are dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.1003 of 2015, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL