Haryana

StateCommission

CC/332/2018

DEBJANI DAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ROHAN MITTAL

05 Jan 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:23.05.2018

                Date of final hearing:05.01.2024

                                                 Date of pronouncement:05.01.2024

 

Consumer Complaint No.332 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Mrs. Debjani Das wife of late Taposh Kumar Das R/o 68, South Park Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi

 

                                                                                      .….Complainant

 

Through counsel Mr. Rohan Mittal, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Pal Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Pal Tower-3^rd Floor, near IDBI Bank Sikanderpur Market near Sikanderpur Metro Station, Gurgaon-122002.

 

 

….Opposite Party

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Rohan Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite party already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2022.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant along with her husband booked a residential unit with the opposite party (OP). Accordingly, the opposite party allotted Unit bearing No. Neillia-B-703, Sector-95, Gurgaon having area 1175 sq. ft. against the basic sale price of Rs.19,90,000/- to complainant and her late husband Taposh Kumar Das.  Floor Buyer Agreement was also executed between the parties on 10.02.2010. The complainant had paid total amount of Rs.8,87,400/- to the OP on different dates. It is also alleged that as per clause 26 of the Floor Buyer Agreement, the opposite party was duty bound to hand over the possession of the unit booked by the complainant and her husband within 18 months from the date of signing of the agreement with a grace period of six months after completion of all the basic amenities. Accordingly, after including the grace period of six months, the OP was required to give the physical possession of the unit to complainant and her husband on or before 11.02.2012. It is further submitted that as per clause 28 (a) of the agreement, if the OP fails to deliver the possession of the unit within the stipulated period, the OP would be liable to pay compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq. ft. of the super area per month for the delayed period. It is also submitted that the complainant and her husband were regularly making the payments. When there was no substantial progress in the project, the complainant enquired from the opposite party about the fate of the project, she was informed that due to some legal complications, the construction of the project was on hold and the future of the project was uncertain. It is also alleged that vide letter dated 15.03.2013, the complainant and her husband requested the opposite party to cancel the booking of the unit and refund the amount paid by them but all in vain. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant prayed that the OP be directed to refund Rs.8,87,400/- which was deposited by them alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits; to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical attrition; and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses, and other reliefs as prayed for.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued against the OP, but despite service through publication, OP failed to appear before this Commission and thus ex-parte proceedings were initiated against the OP vide order dated 12.09.2022.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Mrs. Debjani Das-complainant as Ex.CW1/A vide which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the same.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Rohan Mittal, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averments made in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the OP, alongwith interest or not? 

6.                After careful perusal of the entire record, which is not rebutted, it stands proved that the complainant booked a residential unit with OP. An agreement dated 10.02.2010 also came into existence between the parties. As per the said agreement, total cost of the unit was agreed to be Rs.19,90,000/-. As per the complainant, despite payment of an amount of Rs.8,87,400/- (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6) to the OP, the construction was not completed by the OP. The complainant vide letter dated 15.03.2023 (Ex.C-8) requested for refund of the deposited amount. Since the project is not completed and possession is delayed much beyond the stipulated time, this Commission is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus, the complainant is well within her legal rights to get the refund of balance amount of Rs.8,87,400/- (Eight lakhs eighty seven thousand and four hundred only) which she had already deposited with the OP. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of physical harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still remained deprived of the possession of the unit and under these constrained circumstances, she had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.8,87,400/- (Eight lakhs eighty seven thousand and four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 12%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.33,000/- (Thirty three thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on:05^th  January, 2024

                                                                            

                                                                                               

                                                                                      T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                      (President)        

 

 

 Manjula

(Member) 

 

                                                                                                           

 

                                                                                                           

M.S.