Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/358/2021

Sudesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.S. Walia

15 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/358/2021
Date of Institution	:	01/06/2021
Date of Decision	:	15/05/2024

 

1. Sudesh Kumar son of Late Sh.Bhagat Ram resident of House No.219/2, Sector 45-A Chandigarh.

2. Rekha Janagal wife of Sudesh Kumar son of Late Sh.Bhagat Singh resident of House No.219/2, Sector 45-A Chandigarh.

Complainants

VERSUS

 

1. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. Harpreet Singh, Managing Director, Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Site Office at Parkwood Glade, Sante Majra, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab.

3. Dakshdeep Singh, Director, Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Site Office at Parkwood Glade, Sante Majra, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab.

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate for Complainants (through VC) and complainant No.1 in person.
	:	Sh.I.P.Singh, Advocate for OPs.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are that the complainants were allotted a residential Unit No.A-001, Block-A, Ground Floor, in project Parkwood Glade being developed by the OP, having super built area 1260 sq.ft. in Mohali, for a price of Rs.30,22,305/-. Allotment letter dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure C-1) and payment plan dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure C-2). Flat buyers agreement was executed between the parties on 25^th September, 2011 (Annexure C-3). Till date the complainant has paid Rs.27,91,259/- to the OP as per the demands raised by the OP in accordance with the schedule (Annexure C-4 to C-8). It is further stated that the complainants took a home loan of Rs.22,85,000/- from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., vide letter of offer cum acceptance dated 15.10.2022 and have been paying installments to the bank since the date of sanctioning of the loan (Annexure C-10 & C-11). As per clause 19(a) of the buyers agreement the OP was to deliver possession of the flat by 31.3.2014. Till date no possession has been offered by the OP. As per the clause 20(b) of the buyer’s agreement, the OP was liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. ft. per month of the super area to the allottee for delay beyond the stipulated period. The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.27,91,259/- out of the Rs.30,22,305/-, the cost of the apartment. The complainants have visited the office of the OP in Mohali several times asking about the status of the project but have not received any satisfactory reply. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the present complaint is dated 31.05.2021 having been filed after a period of more than 2 years from the date of the offer of possession of the flat i.e., 19.02.2018, thus barred by limitation. Apart from this, the last payment was made in the year 2013 also beyond the period of 2 years of filing the present complaint. The present complaint is barred by limitation and the same is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further stated that there was delay in handing over the possession of the Flat, in question, to the Complainants which was due to force majeure. It is a matter of record that there was ban in the State of Punjab regarding the building material i.e., sand and granule for a considerable period of time due to which all the building activities in the State of Punjab as well as other parts of the Country, came to stand still. It is not a case where no construction activity has been done by the OP to develop this Housing Project/Colony. The OP Company delivered possession of Flats in 4 Towers in the Year 2012 and the construction of remaining Towers was delayed due to ban on mines which was beyond the control of the OP Company. Thus, these are the force majeure due to which the Tower in question could not be completed by the OP Company within the stipulated period. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     It is evident from Annexure C-9 page No.36 of the paper book and admitted fact as well that complainants have paid an amount of Rs.27,91,259/- to the OPs for the purpose of buying a residential unit. Annexure C-1 dated 20.09.2011 is the allotment letter and Annexure C-2 is the payment plan showing the total cost of the unit as Rs.30,22,305/-. Further Annexure C-3 is buyers agreement dated 25.09.2011 according to clause 19(a) of the same the OP had to deliver the possession of unit by 31.03.2014. But till date the complainant is deprived of the same.
7.     Further Annexure C-13 dated 28.02.2020 clearly shows that even after delay of 6 years since 2014, despite receiving huge amount of Rs.27,91,259/- out of the total payable amount, OPs intimated the complainant that they are making efforts to make sure that the construction of the project reaches its pace within two or three months. Even the latest photographs Annexure C-14 show the incomplete work throughout the project.
8.     As the project of the OPs is still not complete hence, we are of the considered opinion that he cannot be made to wait for more time which is creating immense physical and mental harassment to him and his family.
9.     The Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case of Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited CC 59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016 has held as follows:

         "Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same. It was so held by the National Commission in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Dilshad Gill, III (2015) CPJ 329 (NC). Recently also, under similar circumstances, in the case of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr, Vs. Dr. Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal. No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, held as under:-

    "I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainant was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery".

10.      The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL No.3182 OF 2019, SLP(C) No(s). 1795 OF 2017) Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd Versus Devasis Rudra Respondent(s) has held that the buyer cannot be made to wait endlessly for possession. The relevant para is reproduced as under:-

    “The essential aspect of the case which is required to be analysed is whether the buyer was doing so, having claimed compensation as the primary relief in the consumer complaint. The Buyer's 5 Agreement is dated 2 July 2007. In terms of the agreement, the date for handing over possession was 31 December 2008, with a grace period of six months. Even in 2011, when the buyer filed a consumer complaint, he was ready and willing to accept possession. It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified."

11.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs who are not in position to deliver the possession of the unit as promised, have no right to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants.

12.      In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹27,91,259/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of respective dates of deposit till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

14.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
15/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member