Haryana

StateCommission

A/107/2015

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      107 of 2015

Date of Institution:      30.01.2015

Date of Decision :       19.11.2015

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Parsvnath Metro Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (through its authorized signatory Mr. Madan Dogra).

 

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Paramjeet Singh son of late Shri Sardar Inder Singh, Resident of AA-38, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Amardeep Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Anish Garg, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Party (hereinafter to as ‘the builder’), is in appeal against the order dated November 25^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Paramjeet Singh-complainant/respondent, was accepted directing the appellant/opposite party as under:-

“……we direct the respondents to issue an allotment letter in respect of the plot measuring 400 Sq. yards in the name of the complainant. The respondents are also directed to accept the balance amount from the complainant without any interest or penalty. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”    

2.      The complainant/respondent booked a plot admeasuring 400 square yards with the appellant/opposite party on February 7^th, 2006, by paying Rs.5,53,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-1. The tentative price of the plot was Rs.15,20,000/-. He also paid Rs.2,25,000/- vide receipt Exhibit C-2.  However, the builder did not allot the plot to the complainant despite repeated requests. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The opposite party contested complaint by filing reply. It was stated that merely by making an application for allotment of plot and paying the advance in the present and future project of the builder, the complainant does not entitle for allotment of plot. The complainant had executed an affidavit-cum-undertaking and indemnity in favour of the builder at the time of booking on February 6^th, 2006. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposits alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of acceptance of nomination by the builder.  Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint and issued direction to the appellant/opposite party as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned by raising two fold arguments. Firstly, that since the project was not developed, therefore, the plot does not exist and cannot be allotted to the complainant. Secondly, as per the undertaking given by the complainant at the time of booking of the plot, he is entitled to get refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. 6. None of the arguments has any force. So far as the undertaking of the complainant, the same was given in the year of 2006. If the appellant/opposite party was not to develop the project and not to allot the plot, the action of inviting applications and retaining the huge amount of the complainant for ten years was by itself an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The builder cannot take it for granted by collecting the huge funds and utilizing it for their commercial activities and then taking shelter of the undertaking which was given ten years after the booking that the builder is only liable to pay 9% interest.

7.      The appellant/opposite party has not been able to attribute any default on the part of the complainant in not developing the project. The fact that despite taking advance from number of persons in 2004 and not taking any steps to develop the project till 2015, cannot justify their action.

8.      Keeping in view the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the plot is not available, we feel it appropriate to modify the order to the extent that the appellant/opposite party shall refund the amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. It is ordered accordingly.

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

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 19.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL