Haryana

StateCommission

A/1078/2016

DRDEEPTI DAHIYA - Complainant(s)

Versus

OMAXE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.GOYAL

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

         

                                                 First Appeal No.           1078 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       08.11.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         03.02.2017

 

 

Dr. Deepti Dahiya wife of Dr. Harsh Dahiya, resident of House No.1013/31, Near Hindu College of Pharmacy and Chhotu Ram Chowk, Gohana Road, Sonepat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Omaxe Limited, Office at 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 through its Manager.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                     

 

Present:              Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Dr. Deepti Dahiya-complainant (appellant) against the order dated September 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’).  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…..Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant and further to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the basic cost of this plot, i.e. Rs.14,53,140/- as mentioned in the buyers agreement with effect from the date of filing of the present complaint till the delivery of the actual physical possession of the plot in favour of the complainant.

          Further the complainant is entitled to get the suitable compensation from the respondent for rendering deficient services to the complainant.  The complainant in her prayer clause has claimed Rs.15,00,000/- under the head of compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and financial loss etc.  But in our view, the above said claim of the complainant is on a very higher side.  However, in our view, Rs.20,000/- would be an adequate amount of compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune Rs.20,000/- for rendering deficient services for unnecessary harassment and humiliation.”  

 

2.      Dr. Satbir Singh Dahiya, father-in-law of complainant booked a plot No.453, block B in Omaxe City, Sonepat.  Lateron, the plot was changed from 453 to 573 and was transferred in the name of complainant.  The complainant paid entire cost of the plot to Omaxe Limited-opposite party (for short ‘builder’).  The builder failed to hand over possession of the plot despite making requests by the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the builder as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      The complainant has come up in appeal on the short ground that interest awarded should have been 24% per annum instead of 9% per annum and compensation amount be enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/-.

5.      The District Forum has not only directed the builder to handover physical possession of the plot but also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the basic cost of the plot besides Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.  This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

     

Announced 03.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK