Haryana

StateCommission

A/491/2017

NIRMAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

25 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.491 of 2017

                                                Date of the Institution: 21.04.2017

                                                Date of Decision: 25.03.2019

 

 

Nirmal Singh son of Kidar Singh, resident of House No.20, VPO Kavi, District Panipat.

 

 

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1.      Parsvnath Developers Ltd. registered office at Parsvnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi 110032, through its Manager.

 

2.      Parsvnath Developers Ltd. registered branch office at Sector 8, NH1, District Sonepat through its Manager.

 

…Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

               

                                     

Present:-    Shri Puneet Kakkar, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri Satpal Dhamija, counsel for the respondents.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          Complainant Nirmal Singh has filed the present appeal for challenging the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, whereby he was awarded the refund of entire deposited amount along with interest @ 9% per annum but was not granted the relief of issuance of directions to the opposite parties to issue allotment and possession letter in respect of the residential plot booked and registered in his name.  

2.      According to the complainant, he had booked one residential plot in the project of the opposite parties at Sonepat.  Previously the booking was in the name of one Rajesh Pandey, who had paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- vide receipt dated 05.06.2004. The same was lateron transferred in the name of the complainant, who paid total amount of Rs.8,75,000/- to the opposite parties from time to time. He requested the opposite parties to issue the allotment letter in his name but of no use. The opposite parties failed to construct and develop the project as per their promise. Even allotment and possession letter was also not issued. The complainant vide letter dated 10.03.2014 requested the opposite parties to issue allotment and possession letter. The complainant also served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 04.03.2015 but again of no use. This wrongful act of the opposite parties caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant and, therefore, he filed the present complaint.

3.      In their written version, the opposite parties stated that the complainant was a subsequent purchaser, who had executed an affidavit-cum-undertaking besides indemnity bond dated 22.12.2005 to the effect that he would accept refund of the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in the eventuality of non-allotment of the plot. Shri Rajesh Pandey transferred all his rights in the said registration in favour of the complainant. The complainant made false and vague allegations against the opposite parties. As per terms of the advance registration form, in case of non-allotment of plot within a period of one year from the date of advance registration, the complainant had the option to withdraw the advance paid by giving one month’s advance notice, which notice had not been received by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not cause any mental agony or harassment to the complainant and as such he was not entitled to any compensation. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissing the complaint.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to get relief of refund of the entire deposited amount along with interest @ 9% per annum only.

5.      The State Commission has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order besides going through the record which stands requisitioned.

6.      From the records, it is made out that the opposite parties did not make any attempt to redress the grievances of the complainant, rather the opposite parties utilized the money belonging to the complainant for their personal gains, which would amount to grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.      In a similar case i.e. First Appeal No.867 of 2015 decided on 30.11.2016 by the State Commission, where also the builders had failed to allot any plot to the complainant despite the fact that they had received huge amount from the complainant. It was held that the complainant was entitled to get the relief of refund of the entire deposited amount along with interest only instead of directing the opposite parties to issue allotment and possession letter in his name. Accordingly, the learned District Forum in the instant case had directed the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount along with interest.

8.      In view of the above, no case is made for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

 

       

Announced 25.03.2019

(Manjula) Member

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.