Haryana

StateCommission

CC/9/2016

AMUL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DIVIJ KUMAR

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No.       09 of 2016

Date of Institution:  18.01.2016

Date of Decision:    12.03.2018

 

 

1.      Amul Gupta son of late Mr. O.P. Gupta, resident of # 1741, Park Meadow Drive, James Town, New York-14701,USA.

 

2.      Renu Gupta wife of Amul Gupta, resident of # 1741, Park Meadow Drive, James Town, New York-14701, USA.

 

Both presented through Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Ankush Goyal son of Mr. R.S. Goyal, resident of Flat No.F-29, Arya Nagar Aprtments, I.P. Extension, New Delhi-110092.

 

…..Complainants

 

Versus

 

M/s Pal Infrastructure and Developer Private Limited, represented through its authorized signatory, Mr. Manav Chandra, having its registered office at: B-45, Shakti Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

 

AND

 

Corporate Office at: 3^rd Floor, Pal Tower, Sikanderpur, MG Road, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

……Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                  

   

 

Present:     Shri Prateek Rathi, Advocate for the complainants

                   Opposite party ex parte vide order dated 27.03.2017.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          As per complainants they booked Unit in a project floated by Opposite Party (in short ‘OP’) for Rs.37,40,000/- on 03.06.2007. At that time it was told that necessary permissions were already granted by the Government and possession of Unit would be delivered within 36 months from the date of execution of the Flat Buyer’s Agreement. They have already deposited Rs.22,81,390/-, but OP has not delivered the possession as agreed in between them. So it be directed to refund that amount deposited by them alongwith interest and compensation prayed for.

2.      As OP was proceeded against ex parte on 27.03.2017, so ex parte evidence was recorded.  

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Attorney of complainants reiterated the averments raised in complaint in his affidavit (Exhibit C-A). It is specifically alleged therein that the possession is not delivered within 36 months as per agreement dated 11.10.2011. When the possession is not delivered as per agreement it is to be presumed as deficiency in service on the part of the OP and complainants are entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by them. Hence complaint is allowed, OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till the payment within 30 days after receipt of this order. The complainants are also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.21,000/- as mental harassment etc. and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

  

 

Announced 12.03.2018

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member, Addl. Bench

(R.K. Bishnoi) Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

D.R.