NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/1229/2015

POONAM VASISHT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. MPS LEGAL

11 Apr 2022

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1229 OF 2015
 
1. POONAM VASISHT
H. NO. 87, SECTOR-28A,
CHANDIGARH-160002
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED
(THROUGH ITS MD) PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION,
SHADARA
DELHI-110032
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA,MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Prabhakar Tiwari, Advocate

Dated : 11 Apr 2022
ORDER

JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The admitted facts of the case are that complainant had booked a flat No. 902 in Tower No. T-12 measuring 1855 sq. ft consisting of 3 bedrooms, 3 toilets, drawing / dinning, kitchen with utility, balconies, servant room with toilet in the complex known as “Parsvnath Privilege” in the year 2006.  Flat Buyer Agreement dated 15.05.2007 was entered into between the parties and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement,  construction of the said flat was to be completed within 36 months i.e. by April, 2010.

2.       It is submitted by the complainant that construction of the flat was not completed even till the date of filing of the complaint on 09.10.2015 and, therefore, there has been a considerable delay.  She had paid total amount of Rs. 47,42,000/-.  This inordinate delay has caused lot of sufferings to her and has prayed that opposite party be directed to refund the principal amount of Rs.47,42,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. or such amount at the same rate of   @ 24%p.a. and also award Rs.10.00 lacs for mental agony alongwith cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply filed by the Opposite Party, it is not disputed that construction of flat was not completed till the date of filing of the complaint.  It is further submitted that demand of 18% interest p.a. is contrary to the terms of the Flat Buyer Agreement.  It was also submitted that project was under way and was never abandoned by the opposite party and money of the complainant was utilized towards the construction of the flat only.  It is further submitted that delay occurred due to global recession which hit the economy in 2007-2008 which largely affected the real estate sector.   It is submitted that complainant was entitled for the payment of compensation as specified in clause 10 ( c) of the Flat Buyer Agreement in case of delay.

4.       The parties led their evidences.  We have heard the arguments and perused the record. 

5.       At the outset of the final argument, complainant has submitted that it is a covered case covered under the orders of this Commission in the matter of Aditya Laroia Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. in Consumer Case No. 263 of 2015 decided on 11.05.2016 and Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.in Consumer Case No. 200 of 2011 decided on 05.05.2014 which relates to the same project and it is prayed by the complainant that same relief be awarded to her.   It is further contended that the order in Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi (supra) stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsavnath Developers Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Kumar Dwividi vide Diary No. 25053 of 2014 decided on 12.09.2014, wherein the opposite party withdrew its appeal and, therefore, the order of this Commission was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.   Further,  opposite party also preferred an Appeal against the order of this Commission in Aditya Laroia ( supra) vide Civil Appeal No. 12185 of 2016 decided on 14.07.2017, wherein the Civil Appeal was disposed of on the submission of the learned counsel for the parties that parties have arrived at a settlement and, therefore,  order of the National Commission deemed to have been satisfied. 

6.       From the evidences on record, it is clear that till today, the opposite party is not in a position to offer the possession under the Flat Buyer Agreement.  The possession was to be handed over in the year 2010 and till today, the opposite party has not obtained the occupation certificate.  All the defences raised by the opposite party before us already dealt with by this Commission in the cases of Aditya Laroia ( supra) and  Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi ( supra ) and were rejected and that order has got finality.  This Commission is bound to grant the same relief which had been granted in the case of Aditya Laroia ( supra) and  Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi ( supra ) on the principle of similarly placed complainants and complainant should not be discriminated.  In view of this, following directions are issued :

7.       Opposite Party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.47,42,000/- alongwith @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization.  Complainant is also granted compensation @ Rs.1.00 lakh per year from date of agreement within a period of 90 days from the date of this order for harassment, mental agony, anguish, frustration, anger, sadness.  After the expiry of 90 days, the amount will carry interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization.  A sum of Rs.2.00 lakh towards cost of litigation is also awarded to the complainant.

          In view of the above, Consumer Complaint stands disposed of.

 
......................J
DEEPA SHARMA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
SUBHASH CHANDRA
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.