Delhi

East Delhi

CC/500/2017

SANJEEV KR. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSHAVNATH DEVELOP. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 500/2017

 

	SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SH. DAVINDER KUMAR R/O HOUSE NO.118-A, SECTOR 51A, CHANDIGARH,   THROUGH ITS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY   NEERU SHARMA W/O SH. SANJEEV SHARMA R/O HOUSE NO.118-A, SECTOR 51-A, CHANDIGARH	….Complainant
Versus
	M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED REGD. OFFICE PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION SHAHDARA, DELHI 110032 THROUGH ITS ADDL. G.M. AJAY KASHYAP.	……OP
	M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED PARSVNATH CITY, CENTRAL POINT, NEAR PETROL PUMP, AB BYE-PASS JUNCTION, RAUKHEDI, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH 453771 THROUGH ITS MARKETING MANAGER DINESH MANGLANI	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 8.12.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 12.9.2022

Judgment Passed on: 13.9.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member) On Leave

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in not providing the allotted plot to the Complainant.

Brief facts as stated by the complainant are that the Complainant has purchased an already allotted plot from one Shri Parmod Dafaria, who transferred the share certificate in the name of the Complainant. The said plot at C-166 Parsvanath City, Indore was transferred in the name of the Complainant by the OP, as per law.

The Complainant there after paid all the dues of the said plot after taking loan from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is alleged that as per the Agreement, the possession of plot was to be given in year 2010 but OP failed to hand over the plot. The complainant pursued the OP by sending numerous e-mails enquiring about the status of the plot. Still, the OP kept seeking time under the pretext of global recession. The complainant also sent a legal notice to OP but no reply has been received. The Complainant has not received possession till date. This complaint has been filed by SPA holder of the Complainant, Smt. Neeru Sharma. This complaint was earlier filed at Chandigarh as OPs are having Corporate Office there, but the same was returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction and then he has filed the complaint before this Forum.

The Complainant prays for refund of the amount for Rs.6,96,600/-with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and compensation. 

OP in its reply has accepted that they were developing a project named Parsavanath City at Indore. It is alleged that the Complainant was staying in Chandigarh and had purchased the Plot in Indore and therefore the transactions is commercial in nature. OP also states that as complicated question of facts and laws are involved which required details, facts and evidence, the Commission has no jurisdiction. It is further alleged that the total cost of the Flat was to Rs.20,55,480/- and therefore this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction. It is stated that a Plot buyer Agreement has been executed between Complainant and OP on 1.7.2008.  It is submitted that on 30.12.2017, a final statement of accounts for plot No. C-166 in Parsavnath City, Indore, has been issued to the Complainant, who had to comply with the conditions mentioned to get possession. It is submitted that the work in Tower A and B in Parsavnath City, Indore, is completed and work in tower C is going on.  The Complainant was offered an alternate plot in Tower A or B, which he refused to take. The Complainant himself made a request of allotment of a Flat in Parsavanath Royale, Punchkula, in lieu of booked property. It is further submitted that where Offer of Possession and Conveyance deed has been executed, complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.

The Complainant has filed his Rejoinder reaffirming the facts in the complaint.

 The Complainant has filed her evidence and has exhibited the following documents:-

• Special Power Attorney is exhibited as EX.CW.1/1
• The Complaint No. 834/2016 along with Annexure is exhibited as EX.CW.1/2
• Annexure containing Plot Buyer Agreement dated 10.07.2008 is exhibited as EX.CW.1/3
• Statement of account of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is exhibited as EX.CW.1/4
• Emails between the parties is exhibited as EX.CW.1/5

OP has exhibited the following documents:-

• Resolution is exhibited as EX OP-1
• A copy of letter dated 13.12.2017 is exhibited as EX OP-2

We have given thoughtful consideration to the material document placed on record and also heard the arguments by both the parties. OP has raised a preliminary objection on as to transaction being commercial in nature and that plot had been booked in Indore for investment. In case of purchase of plot, a purchaser can be said to be for a commercial purpose only where it is shown that the purchaser is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling plots on a regular basis, solely with a view to make profit. No evidence has been adduced to show that the complainant is involved in commercial activity. It is just a routine technical objection raised by OP in its reply. Moreover, purchasing of property in other state does not ipso-facto mean that it has been purchased with the intention to gain profit. It is up to the complainant to decide where he wants to live in future. Thus, this contention of the OP has no merits.

OP then has stated in its reply and has argued that the total amount of the Plot is Rs.20,55,480/-. This contention of the OP is not well founded and while going the prayer clause of the complaint, this fact is clear that the complaint has sought back the only that amount which has been paid. Therefore this contention also has no merits. Further the OP has argued that this Forum does not have pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The Commission has perused the record. This complaint is only demanding the amount paid by him i.e. Rs.6,96,600/- and therefore this contention of OP is also not well found. The complaint thus falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

It is admitted that the Complainant was allotted a Plot No.C-166 at Parsavanath City at Indore. The Flat Buyer Agreement and the loan taken to pay the dues on the said Plot is also admitted.  The Agreement shows that the buyer had paid the developer a sum of Rs.6,96,600/-.The basic price of the said Plot was Rs.7,74,000/-. Clause 5 (a) of Plot Buyer Agreement reveals that possession was to be handed over within 24 months from the date of Agreement.

Email dated 03.06.2016 demonstrates that the Complainant asked for refund as he had already paid 95% of the total amount.  The plot was to be delivered in 2010 but it has not been delivered till date.  After multiple e-mails on 7.6.2016, 8.6.2016 and 13.6.2016, OP responded one e-mail dated 13.6.2016. In that email, OP had admitted that offer of possession in block B has already been given and development work in C, D and E Block will be completed in few months time.  It has explained the delay due to global recession. The Complainant continued asking for refund vide email dated. 13.6.2016, 15.6.2016, 20.6.2016, 21.6.2016, 23.6.2016. A legal Notice dated 28.6.2016 was also sent to OP. 

OP by email dated 30.06.2016 offered the Complainant to take a bigger size Plot in A or B Block subject to the payment of the difference in price.  Complainant in email dated 01.08.2016 asked for an option to exchange the plot in Indore with another plot in Parsavanath Royale, Punchkula.  The Complainant in email dated 23.08.2016 states that an offer has been made in Parsavanath Royal, Punchkula but the price was too high.  The Complainant again sent various e-mails dated 26.08.2016, 29.08.2016 and 30.09.2016 to OP for refund of amount paid. 

OP has also filed a letter and a calculation sheet dated 30.12.2017 though no proof of delivery to the complainant has been annexed. The said statement of account shows that Rs.1,10,960/- is to be refunded by OP to the Complainant and the Complainant had to pay Rs.20,853.28/- to OP as maintenance charges.  It is clear from OP’s statement of account that it was Complainant who had to receive money from OP along with possession and no dues had to be paid to OP. It is difficult to comprehend as to why the plot booked in 2008 has not been handed over till date when complainant has made almost full payment.

Hence, we find OP guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices in not handing over the Plot during stipulated time as per Plot Buyer Agreement and direct it to refund Rs 6,96,600/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from date of respective deposit to the date of repayment. We also award a compensation of Rs 35,000/- towards mental agony and stress and Rs 11,000/- towards litigation expanses.

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 13.9.2022

Delhi.

 

 

 

                                                                    On Leave

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President