Haryana

StateCommission

A/399/2016

UMANG REALTECH PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARAMJEET TEHLAN - Opp.Party(s)

GUNJAN RISHI

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    399 of 2016

Date of Institution:    10.05.2016

Date of Decision :     18.10.2016

 

Umang Realtech Private Limited, A Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956; having its office at: 314-325, City Centre Mall, 3^rd Floor District Centre Sector, Opposite Metro Station, Sector 12 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (Through its authorised signatory Mr. K. Sitaraman)

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Paramjeet Tehlan s/o Sh. Kartar Singh, Resident of House No.1923, Sector-29, Sonipat Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Paramjeet Tehlan-complainant (respondent herein), booked a 3 BHK apartment with Umang Realtech Private Limited-Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’), vide application Exhibit R-3. He was allotted apartment No.L-903, measuring 1530 square feet vide letter dated 20^th July, 2013 (Exhibit R-4). The Basic Sale Price of the apartment was Rs.49,72,500/-. He paid Rs.6.00 lacs at the time of booking through cheque dated 18.04.2013; vide receipt Exhibit R-5. The balance amount was to be paid as per Proposed Construction Linked Payment Plan. He also paid Rs.4,25,230/- through cheque vide receipt Exhibit R5/A. The possession of the apartment was to be offered within 42 months from the date of approval of the ‘building plans’ or signing of the Apartment Buyer Agreement, whichever was (“Commitment Period”) with further grace period of six months. However, the builder did not start construction till 3^rd July, 2014 when the complainant received letter dated 3^rd July, 2014 from one Karni Infrastructure & Property Private Limited stating that they had got revised the plan from Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh and then they were using PRE-CAST Technology in the project and the changes in the plans would further help planning of the project.  Thus, alleging deficiency in serviced on the part of the builder, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest and compensation.

2.                The opposite party-builder contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the complaint was premature as the period of 48 (42+6) months had not yet started as envisaged in the Application Form (Exhibit R-3). The period of 48 months was to be reckoned from the date of approval of building plans or signing of the Apartment Buyer Agreement, whichever was later. The complainant did not pay the instalments as per schedule. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.                On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite party-builder as under:-

“……We, therefore, direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.10,25,230/- deposited  by the complainant (i.e. Rs.6,00,000/- vide receipt dated 1.5.2013 Ex.R-5 & Rs.4,25,230/- vide receipt dated 29.7.2013 Ex.R5/A) to the complainant along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its respective deposits till realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

4.                Indisputably, the complainant had booked the apartment with the builder and paid Rs.10,25,230/-.  It is also not in dispute that the possession of the apartment was to be delivered within 42 months from the date of approval of building plan or signing of the Apartment Buyer Agreement, whichever was later, with further grace period of 180 days. The complainant made payment of Rs.10,25,230/- to the builder up to July 29^th, 2013. The complainant filed the instant complaint 11^th September, 2015.

5.                During the hearing of the complaint, the District Forum appointed Local Commissioner on 9^th January, 2016 who visited the spot and submitted report Exhibit P-6. The relevant part of the report reads as under:-

“On the site there was multi storey building of 2 BHK tower and building material, pre cast blocks, concrete plant and fabrication yard was present as shown by me in the site plan. On my inquiry about construction of 3 BHK Flats, it was told to me by the sales manager that till date construction of 3 B.H.K. Flats has not been started even the foundation was not laid. He has shown me the site where the 3 B.H.K. flats are to be constructed which is shown by me in the site plan.”

6.                The Local Commissioner had visited the site in presence of both the parties and therefore the report Exhibit P-6 cannot be ignored.  Even during the course of arguments in appeal, counsel for the builder-opposite party was unable to give any commitment that construction would be completed as per the agreed time.

7.                It view of the above, it is crystal clear that the builder was deficient in service and the complainant has rightly been held entitled to seek refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation. No case for interference is made out.

8.                Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

9.                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 18.10.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL