Haryana

Sonipat

166/2014

Harsdeep s/o Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parsnath Developers Litd. 2. Parasnath Developers Ltd. Sonepat - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Ranga

21 Nov 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.166 of 2014

                                Instituted on:7.06.2014                                              Date of order:12.05.2015

 

Harsh Deep son of Kuldeep Singh, resident of H.No.16/20, Jatwara Mohalla, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar.

                                                     …….Complainant

 

                     VERSUS

 

1.Parsvnath  Developers Ltd, Regd.  And Corporate Office at 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba road, New Delhi-01 through its Chief Managing Director.

2.Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Branch office at Sector 8 NH-1, Distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Ranga Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Pankaj Rohila, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant got booked a plot

Vide customer code PS/H0034 in present and future projects of the respondents and paid Rs.5,40,000/- from time to time to the respondents.  The complainant requested the respondents time and again to issue allotment letter but of no use, whereas the complainant was always and is still ready to pay the balance amount and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and this has also caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that for the reasons beyond the control of the respondents, they were not able to allot the plot in favour of the complainant.  Though the respondents assured the complainant that for the delayed period beyond nine months, the complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the advance amount paid by the complainant. As per terms of Advance registration form  dated 22.9.2004 it was agreed that a plot shall be allotted to the complainant in the future project of the respondents.  If it fails, the complainant shall only be entitled to the refund of payment made in this regard alongwith simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum.  It is not the case of the complainant that the respondents have denied giving possession of the plot but that there is a delay. The allegations has alleged by the complainant are altogether wrong and false. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

 

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,40,000/- with the respondents, but despite this, the respondents have failed to issue any allotment letter regarding the plot in question to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that for the reasons beyond the control of the respondents, they were not able to allot the plot in favour of the complainant.  Though the respondents assured the complainant that for the delayed period beyond nine months, the complainant shall be compensated with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the advance amount paid by the complainant. As per terms of Advance registration form  dated 22.9.2004 it was agreed that a plot shall be allotted to the complainant in the future project of the respondents.  If it fails, the complainant shall only be entitled to the refund of payment made in this regard alongwith simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum.  The allegations has alleged by the complainant are altogether wrong and false. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the respondents.  Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the case law titled as Ganesh Lal Vs.Shyam , Civil Appeal no.331 of 2007.

          But the perusal of the contents of this case law reveals that the facts of the present case and the cited law are totally different.  In the present case, there is a dispute regarding the deficiency in service in between the complainant and the builders and no issue regarding demarcation, ownership and possession is involved in the case in hand.  Whereas in the cited case, there is a dispute between two private parties and not between any individual and builders.  So, the respondents cannot take the benefit of the cited law.

 

          We have gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully.  As per pleadings, the complainant has repeatedly demanded the allotment letter from the respondents and it also appears that the respondents have failed to allot any plot to the complainant despite the fact that they have received the huge amount of Rs.5,40,000/- from the complainant.  The respondents have also failed to issue any letter regarding allotment of the plot to the complainant.  Since the year 2004, so many projects have been launched by the respondents, but the respondents never made any effort to allot any plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to  allot the residential plot to the complainant and also to issue the allotment letter.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.fifty thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the balance amount with the respondents without interest.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:12.05.2015