Delhi

StateCommission

CC/11/413

ARVIND KR. DWIVEDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  15.04.2015

Complaint Case No.413/2011

       

 

Sh. Arvind Kumar Dwivedi

S/o Sh. K.L.Sharma

R/o GD/132 (3^RD Floor)

Pitampura, New Delhi-110088                           ……Complainant    

                                                      

VERSUS

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Having its registered office at:

6^th Floor, Arunachal Building

19, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001

Through its Chairman cum Managing Director ......Opposite Party

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.     Facts of the complaint are not in dispute. M/s Parsavnath Developers Ltd. (in short the OP) floated a scheme for constructing Villas in one of its projects known as Parsavnath City, Sonepat. Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 5 Lac on 06.09.2005. An agreement dt. 22.10.2007 was entered into between the parties. The villa in question was to be constructed by the OP on a land measuring 162.20 Sq. Mt. (194 Sq. Yards). Total sale consideration of the villa was Rs. 25 Lac. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 14,19,168/- to the OP by 19.10.2007. Another amount of Rs. 10,77,018/- was paid by the complainant on 03.09.2011. As per agreement between the parties, the villa in question was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of the construction with an extended period of six months after receipt of the sanction plan.
2.     In its reply to the complaint, OP has not disputed the averments put forth by the complainant. The sole defence raised by the OP is that he could not complete the construction due to ‘recession in the global market’. OP has also submitted that the complainant is a resident of Delhi. Booking of the villa in Sonepat shows that the same has been purchased with the intention of investment. By these grounds, the OP contends that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition as given in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
3.     Nothing has been placed on record by the OP in support of his contention that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ construing him as an investor being a resident of Delhi. Plea is based on surmises and conjectures. OP has also not placed on record any material to show that he failed to construct the villa due to ‘recession in the global market’. Admittedly, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 24,96,186/-. It is also not the case of the OP that the other buyers of the villa in this scheme have not made the payment to the OP. After receiving money from the prospective buyers, the OP did not start the construction. The complainant has placed on record the photographs showing that the construction had not even started. It is, therefore, a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. Prices of the real estate have sky rocketed. Costs of construction too have been gone high. Dream of the complainant of having his own house has been shattered.
4.     We, therefore, direct the OP to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. to refund an amount of Rs. 24,96,186/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.
2. to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5 Lac towards compensation harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, frustration and anguish.

The abovesaid payment shall be made by the OP to the complainant within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the orders failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount accruing thereafter. It is made clear that the complainant shall not make any claim in respect of the villa in any manner. Complainant shall surrender all the documents relating to the property in question in original to the OP immediately after he receives the abovesaid payment. Complaint is accordingly allowed.

5.     Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.