Delhi

StateCommission

CC/620/2014

SMT. SAVITA SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH JAIN

14 May 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :14.05.2019

Date of Decision : 22.05.2019

COMPLAINT NO. 620/2014

In the matter of:

 

Smt. Savita Saini,

W/o. Shri Gauri Shankar,

R/o. Flat No.003,

Sarvapriya Apartment,

Sarvapriya Vihar,

New delhi-110016.……Complainant

 

Versus

 

Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

(Through its Managing director),

Regd. Office,

Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032.….…Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The case of the complainant is that in 2007 he booked a residential flat no.303 measuring 1855 sq. ft. consisting of 3 bedrooms, 3 toilets, drawing/ dinning, kitchen with utlity, balconies, servant room with toilet, in  Tower-T8 of “Parsvnath Privilege” to be developed  and constructed on plot no.11, Sector-Pi (Chorosia Estate), Greater Noida. Builder Buyer Agreement was entered into. Construction was to be completed within 36 months from date of commencement of construction as per clause 10 (a) of the Flat Buyer Agreement. He opted for payment plan B i.e. construction linked plan. Construction started in June, 2007. However construction was stopped immediately in July, 2008 for the reasons best known to the OP. Thereafter OP raised demand for start of basement roof   slab in the  year 2010 and then in the  year 2013, demand for start of first floor roof slab was made. The complainant made payments  mentioned in para-6 of the complaint. This includes the amount transferred from flat no.T-2-202 total of which comes to Rs.33,55,840/-.
2. Husband of the complainant also booked a flat with the OP but immediately after sometime, he got the booking cancelled and the amount paid toward said booking, transferred in favour of the complainant.
3. As per Flat Buyer  Agreement interest of 24% per annum was liable to be charged in case of default in payment by complainant. Complainant should get same interest. OP is liable to pay about Rs.43,77,431/- towards interest up to December, 2014, alongwith principal amount of Rs.33,55,840/-. OP is further liable to pay pendentalite and future interest @18% per annum till realisation. Vide letter dated 10.06.10 OP admitted delay in complete of project.  Hence this complaint for granting Rs.77,33,271/- towards principal alongwith interest, Rs.10 lakhs towards exemplary damages and cost of litigation.
4. The OP filed WS raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer, complainant is seeking recovery of the amount as one of the main relief and ought to have instituted a suit in the District Court. The property is situated in Greater Noida, UP and so this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction. Proceedings before Consumer Courts are essentially summary in nature. The present complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law and so this Commission has no jurisdiction. On account of global recession which hit economies all over the world including Indian economy, more particularly the real estate were hit.  Pace of construction slowed down. Interest can not be awarded from date  prior to the institution of the present proceedings or from date of demand notice. On merits the OP took the same defence. The period of 36 months was subject to receipt of all requisite approvals including sanction of building plan, environmental clearance etc. and further subject to force majeure conditions and restraints/ restrictions from any court/ authority, non availability of building material and any other circumstances beyond control of developer.
5. The complainant filed rejoinder and her own affidavit in evidence.
6. On the other hand OP filed affidavit of Shri Dinesh Jain, Dy. General Manager (CRM) its evidence.
7. Both the parties have filed written arguments. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. On 08.04.19 counsel for the complaisant stated that OP may refund the amount with reasonable interest. Counsel for OP was directed to take instructions for 14.05.19 but on 14.05.19 the counsel for OP failed to report any instructions.
8. Booking by the complainant, payment by the complainant is not in dispute. OP could not complete the flat within the promised period or till the filing of the complaint.
9. So the dispute remains confined to the fact about rate of interest. The agreement does not provide for any interest being payable by OP, in case of default. So only a reasonable amount can be given. In the present scenario I feel that grant of interest @8% per annum would be sufficient.
10. The objction of territorial jurisdiction can not accepted as the OP has registered office within jurisdiction of this Commission. The OP is directed to refund of Rs.33,55,840/- with interest @8% per annum form the date of respective payments till the date of refund. Order to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.   
11. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)