Haryana

StateCommission

CC/66/2015

SANDEEP BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSAVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.SHARMA

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     66 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  14.05.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             19.08.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sandeep Bansal son of Sh. Om Prakash Bansal, resident of House No.175, Sector 9, Panchkula.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, Registered Office, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi -110001 through its Managing Director.

Opposite Party

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                        

 

For the parties:   Shri R.C. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant

                             Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J,

 

          The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Sandeep Bansal-complainant averring that on July 18^th, 2011, he booked a flat with M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Builder’) in the project Royale Panchkula vide application Exhibit C-1.  Flat Buyer Agreement dated August 02^nd, 2011 (Exhibit C-7) was executed between the complainant and the builder.  As per the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given within thirty six months with grace period of six months.  The builder had allotted Flat No.T1/704, Royale Panchkula, Sector 20, Panchkula to the complainant.  The complainant paid amount of Rs.44,70,285/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibit C-2 to 5.  Inspite of repeated requests made to the builder to handover the possession to the complainant, the possession was not handed over.  The complainant prayed that the builder be directed to refund the deposited amount, that is, Rs.44,70,285/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its respective deposit; compensation and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony etc and Rs.30,000/- litigation expenses.

2.      Builder, in its reply, resisted the complaint on various grounds, including its maintainability. The builder in preliminary objections averred that this Commission does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try/adjudicate the complaint because the complainant is not “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Act, as he booked five flats in the name of his family members and the complainant was defaulter in making the payments. On merits, it is pleaded that the overall recession and financial problems, which were not foreseen, contributed to the delay in the completion of the project.  

3.      The complainant in his evidence examined Sandeep Bansal- complainant as CW1 and produced documents Exhibits C1 to C8.  The builder tendered affidavit of R.C Gupta, General Manager alongwith documents Exhibit OP-1 to OP-4.

4.      The following questions arise for consideration:-

(i)      Whether the complainant is consumer or not?

(ii)      Whether the builder defaulted in delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant or not?

5.      The first question, that falls for consideration is whether the complainant is consumer or not?  Since complainant booked five flats in the name of his family members and therefore, the flat was booked for resale/commercial purpose and hence he was not “Consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Act, unless there is evidence on record to show that the complainant had booked more than one property/flat for the purpose of trading, a bald assertion by the builder that property/flat had been bought for the purpose of making profits is not sufficient to hold that the transaction was for “Commercial purpose.”  Except for a bald plea in the reply that the flat had been purchased by the complainant with a view to sell it on premium and make profits, Builder has not said even an additional word in this behalf, leave alone leading evidence to prove the assertion.  So, this plea of the builder is hereby rejected.

6.      Indisputably, the complainant had applied for flat with the builder.  Flat Buyer Agreement (Exhibit C-7) was executed between the parties on August 02^nd, 2011. Flat No.T1/704, Royale Panchkula, Sector 20, Panchkula was allotted to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.44,70,285/- to the builder.  As per agreement dated August 02^nd, 2011, the possession of the flat was to be given within thirty six months with grace period of six months but the builder failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  The builder did not give any plausible reply in not handing over the possession of the flat within the stipulated period to the complainants. Moreover, R.C. Gupta-OPW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the builder is still not in a position to hand over possession of the flat to the complainant.   

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited-builder is directed to pay Rs.44,70,285/- (Rupees Forty Four Lac Seventy Thousand and Two Hundred Eighty Five) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the builder within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.              

  

Announced 19.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K