Haryana

StateCommission

A/529/2015

ANURAG GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSAVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

S.B.GUPTA

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 529 & 654 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15.06.2015 & 06.08.2015

Date of Decision: 30.03.2016

 

Appeal No.529 of 2015

 

1.      Anurag Goyal w/o Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta

2.      Ram Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Prem Chand

Both Residents of House No.319, GH 110, Sector 20, Panchkula.

                                      Appellants/Complainants

Versus

 

1.      M/s Parsavnath Developers Limited, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

2.      Ms. Sujata Sharma, Deputy Manager (CRM), Parsavnath Developers Limited, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

3.      Shri Y.V. Arora, S.R.M. (CRM & Marketing), Parsavnath Developers Limited, Parsavnath Pride Asia RGCTP, IT Park, Opposite Tech Mahindra Office, Chandigarh.

4.      M/s Parsavnath Developers Limited, through its Local Manager, Parsavnath Royal, Panchkula, Sector 20, Panchkula.

 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

Appeal No.654 of 2015

 

Parsavnath Developers Limited, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. R.C. Gupta General Manager (CRM).

 

Also at:

 

Parsavnath City, Sector-8, GT Road, Sonipat, Haryana.

 

Versus

 

1.      Anurag Goyal w/o Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta

2.      Ram Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Prem Chand

Both Residents of House No.319, GH 110, Sector 20, Panchkula.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Ms. Anurag Goyal-Complainant, in person.

Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for Parsavnath Developers Limited/Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No.529 and 654 of 2015 having arisen out of the order dated May 19^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.13 of 2015.

2.      Undisputed facts of the present case are that Anurag Goyal and Ram Kumar Gupta-Complainants, booked a flat with Parsavnath Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’)-Opposite Parties, on December 19^th, 2010, vide application Exhibit RW-1/2. The basic rate of the flat was Rs.3250/- per square feet. The approximate area of the flat was 1780 square feet at the rate of Rs.3250/- per square feet. They were allotted flat No.T4-404, 4^th Floor, Block No.4, in the project namely ‘Parsvnath Royale’. A Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated February 14^th, 2011 (Annexure C-2) was executed between the complainants and the builder. The construction of the flat was to be completed within thirty six months of commencement of the construction, however, with a grace period of six months. The payment was to be made as per ‘Payment Plan’. The complainants deposited Rs.42,66,014/- out of the total sale consideration price of Rs.57,85,000/-. The builder not handing over possession, the complainants got issued notice dated September 15^th, 2014 (Annexure C-12) but to no avail. Hence, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

3.      The builder/opposite parties, contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that the construction work was in progress. The delay was due to global recession. The complainants were informed about the delay in construction work. Even the complainants were defaulters in making payment of instlaments on time. Denying the claim of the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order accepted complaint issuing direction as under:-

“(i)     To make the payment of an amount of Rs.5/- per sq. ft per month of the super area to the complainants from the date of deposit till the date of handing over the possession. However, the total due amount under this head calculated till the date of this order shall be paid by the Ops to the complainants within a period of one month of getting the certified copy of this order and the remaining amount shall be adjusted/paid.

(ii)      To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for harassment and deficiency in service.

(iii)     To make the payment of Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

This order shall be complied with by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy, thereafter, the Ops shall pay the amount at serial No.2 above with the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. Besides complying with the directions at serial No.1 and 3 above.”

5.      Appeal No.529 of 2015 has been filed by the complainants for enhancement of compensation and appeal No.654 of 2015 has been filed by the builder-Opposite Parties for setting aside the impugned order.

6.      It is not disputed that the flat was booked on December 19^th, 2010, vide application Exhibit RW-1/2 and the Flat Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-2) was executed on February 14^th, 2011. The complainants have paid a sum of Rs.42,66,014/-. The builder has not been able to establish any default on the part of the complainants in making the payments. No evidence of any ‘force meajeure’ circumstances has been led by the builder.  In Clause 10 (c) of the agreement, the builder has agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- per square feet per month in the event of delay in handing over possession of the flat. Thus, the builder has rightly been directed to pay compensation to the complainants.

7.      So far as the prayer of the complainants for enhancement of compensation, in the considered opinion of this Commission, they have already been granted adequate compensation and no case for enhancement is made out.  

8.      In view of the above, this Commission does not find any legality in the impugned order. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeal No.654 of 2015, be refunded to the complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 30.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL