Haryana

StateCommission

CC/498/2017

VIKAS MEHANDIRATTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN SOOD

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA            

  Date of Instituion:16.08.2017

                Date of final hearing:27.03.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:27.03.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.498 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Vikas Mehandiratta son of Shri Jai Gopal, resident of H.No.704, Block-A, Sunrise Jaipuria Greens, V.I.P. Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi District S.A.S. Nagar Mohali, Punjab.   

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate

Versus

 

1.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., through its Managing Director, registered & corporate office, 6^th Floor, Arunanchal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

2.      M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd., through Sh. Yudhvir Arora, Senior Manager (CRM & Marketing), site Office Parsvnath Royale, Sector-20, Panchkula.          

….Opposite parties

Through Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat proxy counsel for Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate

 

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

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, proxy counsel for Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    Brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present complaint are that the vendors of complainant (original allottee Mr. Bahadur Singh Gulati) booked a flat bearing No.704 in Tower-2, 7^th Floor under the scheme “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula to be developed by opposite parties against a total sale consideration of Rs.62,18,875/-. Subsequently, Mr. Bahadur Singh Gulati shifted the said flat to Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties vide letter dated 21.01.2008. Thereafter, the said Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula was re-allotted to Shri Radhe Sham Midha in his name and the acknowledgment in this regard was made by the opposite parties on 04.12.2012. Then, the complainant purchased the flat in question from Shri Radhe Sham Midha and the opposite parties had also made acknowledgement in this regard on 02.03.2013. Flat Buyer Agreement was also executed between the parties on 07.02.2007. The complainant had paid total amount of Rs.52,72,077.75p to the opposite parties against a total sale consideration of Rs.62,18,875/-. As per the agreement, the opposite parties were required to complete the construction of the flat within a period of 36 months on receipt of sanction of building plans with a grace period of six months. It is further submitted that there was no fault of any kind in making the payment of installments of the flat in question. As per the agreement, the opposite parties were required to complete the construction in all respect till August-2010 but there was only a bare structure of skeleton of the tower in existence and no development activities were going on. It is submitted that till date the complainant has paid total sum of Rs.52,72,077.75p but the opposite parties have failed to hand over the possession of the flat in question to the complainant. Complainant made several requests to the opposite parties either to give the possession or to return his hard earned money but the opposite parties did not consider his genuine request. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund of Rs.52,72,077.75p/-  which was deposited by him alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of  respective deposits; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.55,000/- as litigation charges.

2.                Notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and the written statement was filed, wherein the opposite parties admitted that the flat No.704 in Tower-2, 7^th Floor under the scheme “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula was originally allotted to Shri Bahadur Singh Gulati and thereafter Mr. Gulati shifted to Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula. The said Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula was re-allotted to Shri Radhe Sham Midha and lastly, the flat in question was transferred in the name of complainant. It is denied that the final date of construction of the flat of which the possession was to be given to the complainant was fixed. It is further submitted that the super structure of the tower in which the flat of complainant is situated had been completed and opposite parties are working towards completion of project. It is further submitted that the complainant has also made several defaults in making the timely payments towards the installments of flat. It is submitted that the delay in completion of project is not intentional but is due to global recessions. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, statement of complainant Vikas Mehandiratta was recorded as CW-1 and thereafter, learned counsel for the complainant has closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of Madan Dogra, Deputy General Manager of opposite parties and further tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Nitin Sood, learned counsel for the complainant and by Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, proxy counsel for Mr. Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for opposite parties. With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averments taken in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already paid to the OPs, along with interest or not? 

7.                Undisputedly, the flat No.704 in Tower-2, 7^th Floor under the scheme “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula was originally allotted to Shri Bahadur Singh Gulati and thereafter Mr. Gulati shifted to Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula. The said Flat No.G-01, in Tower-5, Ground Floor under the name “Parsvnath Royale” in Sector-20, Panchkula was re-allotted to Shri Radhe Sham Midha and lastly, the flat in question was transferred in the name of complainant. It is also not disputed the complainant paid an amount of Rs.52,72,077.75p to the opposite parties (Ex.C-5) . It is also undisputed that the Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the complainants and the OPs on 07.02.2007(Ex.C-3), according to which possession of the said flat was to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 36 months of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the Flat is located. It is also not disputed that construction work was not completed and opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question despite the fact that the complainant kept waiting for several years (Ex.C-6). Since, the opposite parties did not complete the construction work till date, there was no possibility of delivery or possession of the flat within the stipulated period, therefore, the complainant was justified in seeking refund of his deposited amount. In view of the above, it is held that the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation. As such, the question is answered in the affirmative.

8.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.52,72,077.75p (Rs. Fifty two lacs seventy two thousand, seventy seven and seventy five paisa only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization.  In case, there is delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would be further entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh Only) as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.55,000/- (Fifty five thousand Only) as litigation expenses. It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act would also be attracted.

9.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on:27^th March, 2023

                                                                                               

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            T.P.S. Mann

                                                                                                            (President)

           

 

 

 Manjula

(Member)

M.S.