NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/2385/2018

KAPIL GUJRAL & 3 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MR. DANISH ZUBAIR KHAN

06 Oct 2022

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 2385 OF 2018
 
1. KAPIL GUJRAL & 3 ORS.
2. .
.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Karan Raj Purohit, Advocate

Dated : 06 Oct 2022
ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Karan Raj Purohit, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Above complaint has been filed for directing M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (i) to refund the entire deposit made by the home buyers along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual realization; (ii) to pay Rs.250000/- to each of the complainants, as compensation for unfair trade practice and deceptive method adopted against the buyers; (iii) to pay Rs.500000/- to each of the complainants as compensation for mental harassment and agony; (iv) to pay Rs.50000/- as cost of litigation; and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper be awarded to the complainant.

3.      Initially the complaint was filed by 4 sets of flat buyers, along with IA/2678/2019, under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. IA/2678/2019 was allowed on 08.05.2019 and permission to sue as class action complaint has been granted. Later on, some of the complainants have settled their dispute and their names were deleted. Some of the home buyers having same interest as claimed in the complaint were added as the complainants.

4.      The complainants stated that M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (the opposite party) was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of residential and commercial building and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a project in the name of “Parsvnath Privilege” at Plot No.11, Sector-PI, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2006 and made wide publicity of the project. Allure with the advertisement given by the opposite party, the complainants booked flat during the year 2007 to 2013 and deposited substantial amount, time to time and Flat Buyers Agreement were executed in their favour shortly after allotment. As per Clause 10 (a) of Flat Buyers Agreement, the opposite party assured to complete the construction within a period of 36 months from the date of commencement of the construction, but they have failed to complete the construction although the homer buyers have deposited substantial part of sale consideration with the opposite party.  On physical verification of the construction on the site, it was not likely to be completed in the near future as such the complaint was filed for aforementioned reliefs on 24.10.2018 alleging deficiency in service.

5.      The notice issued in the complaint and IA/2678/2019, under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was served upon the opposite party. The opposite party put appearance through counsel, but did not file any reply either in the application under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or in the complainant. The opposite party was given 30 days’ time for filing written reply in the complaint on 08.05.2019 but written reply was not filed. Statutory period for filing written reply as provide under Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has already expired.

6.      This Commission in CC/821/2016 P.P. Social Welfare Society Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Limited (decided on 09.06.2022) relating to the same project, held that the opposite party could neither complete the construction not obtain occupancy certificate. As such relying upon judgements of Supreme Court in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’Lima, (2018) 5 SCC 442, Kotkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, 2019 (6) SCALE 462, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrstructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, (2019) 5 SCC 725 and Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd.,(2020) 16 SCC 512, it has been held that the home buyers cannot be made to wait for unlimited period for possession and directed for refund of their money. 

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Under Clause 10(a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, possession has to be delivered within 36 months from the date of commencement of construction. 36 months was completed even in which Flat Buyers Agreement was executed in the year 2013, however, the possession has not been delivered nor was the project ready and Occupation Certificate has been obtained till today as such the home buyers are entitled for refund of their money.

                                                                                            ORDER

          In the result, the complaint succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund entire money deposited by the complainants along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgement.

 
......................J
RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. INDER JIT SINGH
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.