Haryana

StateCommission

A/575/2017

DR.RAJESH JALE - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE CONSTRUCTION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

19 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

F.A.No.360 of 2017

Date of institution:-30.03.2017

Date of Decision:-19.03.2019

 

1.      Omaxe Construction Ltd. through its Managing Director office at Omaxe House, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.

2.      The Project Manager, Omaxe Construction Ltd. Omaxe City, Rohtak.

Both appellants through authorized representative namely Dheeraj  Sharma, Omaxe Construction Ltd., 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.

…..Appellants

Versus

Dr.Rajesh Jale s/o Sh. Sh.Chand Ram, R/o Kath Mandi,gohana, District Sonepat, presently residing at Bharat Colony Rohtak.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:              Shri Nihal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

First Appeal No.575 of 2017

Date of Institution: 12.05.2017

Date of Decision: 19.03.2019

 

Dr.Rajesh Jale s/o Sh. Sh.Chand Ram, R/o Kath Mandi,gohana, District Sonepat, presently residing at Bharat Colony Rohtak.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Omaxe Construction Ltd. through its Managing Director office at Omaxe House, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalka Ji, New Delhi.

2.      The Project Manager, Omaxe Construction Ltd. Omaxe City, Rohtak.

                   …..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                              Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:              Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri Nihal Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay in filing the appeal bearing No.575 of 2017 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      Vide this order above mentioned two appeals, bearing Nos.360 of 2017 and 575 of 2017, will be disposed of, as both are directed against order dated 17.02.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’).

3.                Briefly stated, the facts narrated in the complaint are that the complainant had booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in pre-launching booking conducted by opposite parties for Rohtak city in the month of November 2005.   On 26.11.2015, an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the O.P.  The first installment was paid by the complainant amounting to Rs.3,14,000/- dated 27.07.2006 with the O.Ps.  After some time, his plot was cancelled without giving due opportunity of hearing. He requested the Ops to deposit the balance amount of the plot, but, they claimed interest and resumption charges from him.  The complainant refused to pay the abovesaid charges.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

4.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps.-appellant by filing a written version before the District Forum, in which, they stated that the complainant opted time linked payment plan.    As per payment plan, OP sent demand letter dated 07.11.2006, reminder 01.03.2007, 06.01.2009, 31.12.2009, but, the complainant did not make the payment, as such, O.P. sent cancellation letter dated 08.03.2010 to complainant with due amount of Rs.8,28,000/- as interest of Rs.3,22,463/-.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

5.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 17.02.2017 and  directed the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.8,64,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last deposit i.e. 27.07.2006 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which Ops shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps as well as complainant have preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Nihal Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants in appeal No.360 of 2017 and respondents in appeal No.575 of 2017 as well as Sh.Sikander Bakshi, the learned counsel for the respondent in appeal No.360 of 2017 and appellants in appeal No.575 of 2017. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Initially, the plot was allotted to the present appellant in appeal No.575 of 2017 and respondent in appeal No.360 of 2017.  A plot bearing No.300 sq. yards was allotted by the O.Ps. in the name of the present complainant-appellant in appeal No.575 of 2017 and an amount of Rs.8,64,000/-  was also paid to the O.Ps.  Lateron, since there was no development as per the satisfaction of the investors, the amount demanded by the builder did not pay by the present allottee-complainant, the plot was cancelled and then lateron, it was transferred in the name of somebody else.  Here is the stage when the problem arise and ultimately, under the compelling circumstances, the appellant had to file the present complaint before the learned District Forum, Rohtak, which was allowed and against the said order there are two cross  appeals, one was filed by the  investor and other was filed by the builder. 

9.      As per the contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, that it appears to be a bonafide intention to purchase plot by the investor and ensured that the property, which he has purchased, the amount is properly utilized and some developmental work has been executed where the plot is to be allotted and township is to be developed.  Since there was no satisfactory development work executed by the builder.  Under the constraint circumstances, the investor has to stop the payment, the builder was mounting the pressure not only the investor-complainant and also pressing the other investors also. When there is no proper developmental work executed by the builder, in that eventuality, the present investor was justified to the extent not to make the further payment till the satisfactory work is executed.  It is quite surprising that even after getting 45% of the total amount of the plot, which was initially allotted to the investor  or the present appellant  Dr.Rajesh Jale in appeal No.575 of 2017, his plot was even cancelled, which is very pathetic and this kind of the attitude of the builder is highly condemn and in such like matters the court has to be callous enough and the O.Ps. are to be dealt with severe hands  and cannot be allowed to mis-utilizing the funds of the investors or to have  a mis-directions of funds, which ultimately has been resulted into non-completion of the project and ultimately, it is the complainant or the investor who had to suffer. 

10.    Since the learned District Forum had allowed the refund of the amount invested by the present appellant in appeal No.575 of 2017 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of last deposit i.e. 27.07.2006 till its actual realization, this kind of awarding of interest is unjustified and awarding of interest is modified to the extent that the appellant in appeal No.575 of 2017 would be entitled to  interest @ 12% per annum from the respective deposits in different phases till realization.  However, as far as the period count by the learned District forum is further modified to the extent that  whatever the amount has been deposited by the investor has to be paid alongwith the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits within the period of three months, failing which the present appellant namely Mr. Rajesh Jale get the interest @ 18% per annum for the defaulting period. Mr.Rajesh Jale-complainant is also entitled of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment.

11.    As far as the litigation charges are concerned, in the considered opinion of this Commission, this is very tough case, the builder has cross the limits and they are living a lavish life on the amount of the investors, hence the builder shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  It would be appropriate for the investor, if he desire so and legally advise that he can approach the competent authorities in the police department for getting the criminal case registered as he has played cheating with the investors.   It calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the opposite party fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.          

12.    With this modification, appeal bearing No.575 of 2017 stands disposed off.   The appeal bearing No. 360 of 2017 is dismissed.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal  bearing No.360 of 2017 be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and due verification.

14.    The original judgement be attached with appeal No.360 of 2017 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.575 of 2017.

March 19th, 2019             Mrs.Manjula                                      Ram Singh Chaudhary                                                                                   Member                                              Judicial Member                                                                                              Addl.Bench                                        Addl.Bench                       

S.K.