STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      1091 of 2015

Date of Institution:        04.12.2015

Date of Decision :        21.07.2016

Harbir Singh Dahiya s/o Sh. Ram Singh, Resident of House No.2342, Sector-15, Sonipat-131001.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

Omaxe Limited 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Present:               Appellant in person.

                             Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 3^rd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.84 of 2015.

2.      Harbir Singh Dahiya-complainant/appellant, was allotted Flat No.SNF/Signature/First/106 on October 12^th, 2006 in the project of Omaxe Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Party/appellant. The name of the project was Omaxe Heights, Sonipat. He paid Rs.26,52,469/- to the builder up to October 15^th, 2013 but possession was not delivered. Though possession was offered on October 4^th, 2013, however without delivering possession, the builder sent the Energy Bill (Exhibit CW1/4). It was alleged that the builder was deficient in not delivering possession and demanding energy charges without handing over possession. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the builder, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was before the District Forum.

3.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed complaint directing the builder as under:-

“…we hereby direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,13,200/- (Rs. fifteen lacs thirteen thousand two hundred)  w.e.f. October, 2013 to July, 2014. The respondent is further directed to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainant and to get execute the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant. The complainant is directed to complete the formalities of the respondent for the execution and registration of conveyance deed in his favour.”

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that the complainant should have been awarded interest on the entire amount deposited, that is, Rs.26,52,469/- instead of Rs.15,13,200/-.

5.      The contention raised is plausible. The complainant has placed on the file copies of cheques dated October 15^th, 2013 vide which the amount demanded vide letter dated 4^th October, 2013 was paid. Indisputably, the complainant had paid Rs.26,52,469/- up to October 15^th, 2013 and thus the builder has utilized the amount deposited by the complainant without delivering the possession. There was no reason to restrict interest only on amount of Rs.15,13,200/- when the complainant had paid Rs.26,52,469/-. In view of this, the complainant is entitled to interest on the entire amount deposited by him, that is, Rs.26,52,469/-.

6.      Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant shall be entitled to interest, as allowed by the District Forum, on the amount of Rs.26,52,469/- w.e.f. 15^th October, 2013 till actual handing over of possession. The rest of the order is maintained.

7.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

CL