View 1147 Cases Against Parsvnath
C S MALIK filed a consumer case on 26 Sep 2016 against PARSVNATH BUILDERS in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/173/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 05 Oct 2016.
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Arguments: 26.09.16
Date of Decision: 03.10.16
Complaint No. 173/14
In the matter of:
R/o B-501, NPSC, Plot No, 5
Sector-2, Dwarka
New Delhi-110075.
R/o B-501. NPSC, Plot No. 5
Sector-2, Dwarka
New Delhi-110075. .......Complainants
Versus
M/s Parsvnath Builders
6th Floor, Arunachal Building
19, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi-110001
Through CEO ........Opposite Party.
CORAM
O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
JUDGEMENT
The complaint is based on the allegation that complainant purchased a flat No. T-1201 in Preston Project , Sonepat for Rs. 33,80,000/-. He booked the flat in July 2008 and was to get possession in July 2011, latest by Jan., 2012. It was mutually agreed that builder will pay Rs. 24500/- per month w.e.f.Feb., 2012 to carry out the payment of EMI. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 33,80,000/- alongwith interest, Rs. 1,00,00/- for mental agony and Rs. 1000/-m towards cost of petition.
2. The OP filed WS raising preliminary objection that flat was booked in the name of Mrs. Natasha Malik and complaint has been filed Shri C.S.Malik without showing interest and without authority letter. The complaint is for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant has entered tripartite agreement wherein bank was also party. Ms. Natasha Malik got herself registered for a residential flat on 02.06.06 also and paid Rs. 1,69,018/- in new project of OP. She was provisionally allotted flat No. T1-1201 in Parsvnath Preston, Sonepat, Haryana. The basic cost of the flat was Rs. 33,80,000/- whereas complainant has paid Rs. 32,80,000/- only. Vide letter dated11.06.08 complainant has requested for cancellation of booking. The said request has not been accepted as per policy of OP on account of global recession which hit the economy all over the world and had effect on the Indian economy at large, real estate sector was hit due to which phase of construction slowed down. Agreement of EMI dated 28.02.13 specifically mentioned that if possession of flat is not handed over by December, 2016, complainant can seek cancellation and refund. Agreement stipulated that in case of delay in possession, developer shall pay compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq yd.
3. The complainant moved an application for amendment of complaint to implead his wife Ms. Natasha Malik as complainant no. 2. The same has been allowed vide order dated 26.09.16.
4. Before the parties could open the case for evidence, the complainant no. 1 submitted that agreement of EMI dated 28.02.13 provides for payment of interest @ 10% per annum and in order to settle the matter and with a view to buy peace he is agreeable to accept the amount alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. He has submitted that he is willing to do so provided OP make the payment in one go within a reasonable period.
5.The offer made by complainant no. 1 appears to be just and reasonable. Accordingly OP is directed to refund Rs. 32,80,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum in one go within three months. OP will be entitled to adjust the amount of EMI paid by it to the bank, out of the aforesaid amount. It is made clear that since OP is being directed to pay compensation and not interest, it will not deduct TDS.
Copy of order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.
(O.P.GUPTA)
MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.