Delhi

StateCommission

CC/10/177

DEEPTI GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

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. 177/2010

 

In the matter of:

 

Mrs. Deepti Gupta w/o Sh. Amit Gupta

R/o C-285, Sector 19, Noida

Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar-201301 (UP).                  ...Complainant

 

 

                                      Versus

 

    M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

    Through its  Managing Director

    6^th Floor, Arunachal Building,

    Barakhamba Road, New Delhi                    .....  Opposite party

 

CORAM

 

                                                                                               

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

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

 

•  

 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

JUDGEMENT

        The complaint proceeds on the allegation that complainant booked villa to be constructed on 240 sq. yds. plot in “Elite Villa” vide application dated 6^th May, 08 and gave cheques for Rs. 5,35,000/- and Rs. 38,80,600/-.  The OP allotted Elite Villa No.B-141 on NH-8 , Dharuhera, Haryana. The OP replied vide E-mail dated 02.02.10 that delivery would be made by the end of 2011. OP utterly failed to ensure timely delivery of possession of booked villa.  No construction was in sight after plinth level at the time of filing the complaint.  On 28.03.10 and 04.04.10 father in law of complainant No. 1 & father of complainant no. 2 visited the site and was shocked to observe that area demarcated exclusively for via was being developed into floors.  The same was in violation of initial booking.  The complainants have already paid 95% of the cost of villa, besides Rs. 50,000/- for club membership fee. Notice dated 29.04.10 was sent but no response was received. Hence they have filed this complaint for delivery of possession, recovery of interest @ 24% per annum, Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lakh) as compensation of the damages. 

2.     OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that matter involves complicated questions of facts and law which cano0t be decided in summary procedure under consumer protection Act. Complainant has concealed facts that agreement stipulates that in the event of delay in construction complainants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. on merits booking of villa and payment of money has not been disputed.  The OP has tried to justify delay in construction.  It pleaded that construction of villa was in progress and would be completed very soon.  WS was filed in Nov., 201.  And now we are in the end of 2016,  the villa has not been completed so far.

3. The complainant filed affidavit of complainant no. 1 in evidence.  He repeated the averment made in the complaint and referred to the documents exhibit CW1/1 to CW1/52 . They also filed affidavit of Shri T.C.Gupta, Special Attorney of both the complainants.  He also supported avernments made in the complaint.

4. On the other hand the OP filed affidavit of Shri Madan Lal Dogra, Deputy General Manager (Commr.) on the lines of WS.

 5. Both the parties filed written arguments.

6. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for complainant submitted that now they are not interested in taking the villa.  They want refund of their money because the purpose for which villa was booked has frustrated.

7. Counsel for the OP refuted the arguments of counsel for complainant and submitted that the only prayer made in the complaint is delivery of possession. The complaint does not contain any prayer for refund of the amount.

 8. I have considered the rival submission and find that OP cannot compel the complainant to take villa at any time, howsoever late it may be.  The complainant contemplated to take possession within three years from 2007 and not after 9 years.  The complaint contains residuary prayer for any other order which this commission seems just and proper.  This is wide enough to include prayer of refund of the amount.  After all builder cannot be allowed not to deliver its obligation of delivery of villa in time and retain amount also.

9. The counsel for the complainant cited order dated 14.09.16 passed by Bench 1 of this commission in complaint case no. 178/2010 titled as Pankaj Gupta another vs. Parsvnath.  In the said judgement OP was directed to refund the amount along with interest  @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till date of refund.  I put it to the counsel for the complainant that in the present scenario granting of interest @ 18% per annum is not worth pressing.  They should be more interested in their amount with reasonable interest.  He agreed that if OP makes the payment within reasonable time, he is prepared to accept interest @ 12% per annum.

10. In view of the above discussion the complaint is allowed, OP is directed to pay Rs. 44,15,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.  The order shall be complied with within two months failing which the complainant would be entitled to invoke section 25/27 of the consumer protection Act.

        Copy of order be sent to district forum for information.

 

                                                                                                           

    (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                    MEMBER(JUDICIAL)​