NCDRC

NCDRC

CC/3341/2017

BRIG. SUDHIR KUMAR CHAUDHARY (RETD.) & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. M.L. LAHOTY & PABAN K. SHARMA & MS. GARGI BHATTA BHARALI

08 Feb 2019

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 3341 OF 2017
 
1. BRIG. SUDHIR KUMAR CHAUDHARY (RETD.) & ANR.
S/O LATE SHRI INDER SINGH, R/O BV-2, FLAT NO.202, EXOTICA, SECTOR-53,
GURGAON
HARYANA
2. MRS. SHAKUNTALA CHAUDHARY
W/O BRIG. SUDHIR KUMAR CHAUDHARY(RETD), R/O B-2, FLAT NO.202, EXOTICA, SECTOR-53, GURGAON
HARYANA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR.
PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION,
SHAHDARA
DELHI-110 032
2. PARSVNATH HESSA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION,
SHAHDARA
DELHI-110 032
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Anchit Sripat, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :
Mr. Prabhaker Tiwari, Advocate

Dated : 08 Feb 2019
ORDER

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The complainants have filed their rejoinder and affidavits way back on 11.05.2018. The opposite party, however, had not filed either the affidavit of admission/denial of documents or affidavit by way of evidence. Since the matter is stated to be covered by the previous order of the Commission, I see no justification for giving another opportunity to the opposite party for filing its affidavits. Therefore, heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits.

2.      The complainants booked a residential flat with the opposite party in a project namely, ‘Parsvnath Exotica’ which the opposite party  was to develop in sector 53 of Gurgaon.  Flat No. B-6-301 in tower B-6 of the above referred project was allotted to them for a basic sale consideration of ₹2,46,62,250/-. The parties then executed a Flat Buyer’s Agreement on 21.12.2010, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid flat. Clause 10 (a) of the agreement pertains to the delivery of possession to the extent it is relevant the said clause reads as under:

“10 (a) Construction of the Flat is likely to be completed within a period of thirty six (36) months of commencement of construction of the particular Block in which the Flat is located or 24 months from the date of booking of the flat, whichever is later, with a grace period of six (6) months, on receipt of sanction of building plans/ revised building plans and approvals of all concerned authorities including the Fire Service Deptt., Civil Aviation Deptt., Traffic Deptt., Polution Control Deptt., as may be required for commencing and carrying on construction  subject  to force majeure, restraints or restrictions from any courts/authorities, non-availability of building materials, disputes with contractors/ work force etc. and circumstances beyond the control of the Developer and subject to timely payments by the Flat Buyers………”

3.      It would thus be seen that the construction was required to be completed within 36 months of commencement of the construction of block B-6, in which the flat was located or within 24 months from the booking of the flat, whichever was later, with a grace period of six months, though of course subject to force majeure circumstances mentioned hereinabove. 

4.      As noted by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 1878 of 2016, Rohit Agarwal & Anr. Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr., decided on 30.07.2018, the construction of tower B-6 commenced on 04.05.2011. The construction therefore ought to have been completed by 04.11.2015, including the grace period of six months. Admittedly, the construction is not complete and the possession has not been offered despite the complainants having already paid a sum of ₹2,19,39,592/- to the opposite party. The complainants are, therefore, before this Commission, seeking possession of the allotted flat within four months of the institution of the complaint or in the alternative refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, along with compensation etc.

5.      The opposite party has filed the written version contesting the complaint but has not disputed either the allotment made to the complainants or the payment received from them. Admittedly, the complaint has been resisted solely on the grounds which this Commission has already rejected in several other consumer complaints including Rohit Agarwal (supra). Therefore, the said grounds need not be examined again in the present complaint. The decision of this Commission in Rohit Agarwal (supra) to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

“2.     The OP has filed written version resisting the complaint but has admitted the allotment made to their predecessor in interest as well as the transfer of the said allotment in favour of the complainants. The payment received in respect of the above-referred flat has  also not been disputed by the OPs. It is alleged that the construction was delayed on account of the reasons beyond the control of the opposite party. The aforesaid reasons are stated to be (i) lack of adequate sources of finance (ii) shortage of labour (iii) rise in  manpower material cost and (iv) approval and procedural difficulties.

3.      The grounds on which the complaint has been resisted have already been rejected by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 91 of 2009 Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. decided on 21.1.2016  and Consumer Complaint No.127 of 2017 – Mallika Raghavan Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. decided on 19.4.2018. The decision of this Commission in   Mallika Raghavan (supra) to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

“4.      The learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the decision of this Commission dated 21.1.2016 in Consumer Complaint No. 91 of 2009 Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore Vs. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd., wherein the opposite party had allotted a flat in Tower D-4 of this very project to the complainant therein but had failed to deliver possession of the said flat to hm.  The complaint instituted by Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was resisted by the opposite party, primarily on the ground that the recession had hit Indian economy over past two years and Real Estate Sector was one of the worst hit sectors, as a result of said slow down.  The aforesaid plea taken by the opposite party was rejected by this Commission, noticing that the slowdown in the economy was not one of the grounds which could justify the delay in completion of the construction, since Clause 10(a) of the Agreement between the parties referred only to restrictions/ restraints from any Court / Authority, non-availability of building material, disputes with contractors / workforce etc., and the circumstances beyond the control of the developers.  It was noted that there was no evidence of the opposite party having constraints on account of such a reason in carrying out or completing the construction of the flat.  It was further noticed that there was no evidence of non-availability of building material or the opposite party having dispute with any contractor / workforce deployed at the site of the construction.  It was held that the delay in completion of the project unjustified.  The opposite party was therefore, directed to complete the construction of the flat in all respects, deliver its possession within eight months from the order of this Commission and also  pay compensation in terms of the said order to the complainants therein namely Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore.

5.      In my view, lack of adequate sources of finance with the opposite party cannot be a justified ground for the delay in completion of the construction.  It was for the opposite party to arrange the finance required for completion of the project within the time stipulated in this regard and it has only to blame itself if it could not arrange the requisite finance.  As far as shortage of the labour is concerned, there is no evidence of the labour not being available during the relevant period.  Rise in the man power and material cost or approval and procedural difficulties cannot justify the delay in completion of the project.” 

6.      During the course of hearing, I have asked the learned counsel for the opposite party as to whether they are in a position to deliver possession of the allotted flat to the complainants and whether they have  received the requisite occupancy certificate. The learned counsel submits that they have not yet received the occupancy certificate and are not in a position to offer possession of the allotted flat to the complaints, though they have cleared the dues which were required for the issuance of the occupancy certificate. He also states that they had applied for the issuance of the occupancy certificate but the same has not been issued so far.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainants do not wish to wait anymore for the possession of the allotted flat and want refund of the amount paid by them to the opposite party, since they are not sure when the opposite party will be able to receive the requisite occupancy certificate and offer possession of the allotted flat to them.  Considering that there has already been delay of more than four years from the stipulated date for delivery of possession, the opposite party is yet to obtain the occupancy certificate and  is not in a position to offer possession of the allotted flat the request made by the complainants is justified.

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the complainants are entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them to the OP alongwith appropriate compensation.  The learned counsel for the complainants has drawn my attention to clause 15 of Haryana Real Estate (Regulation And Development) Rules 2017 which inter-alia provide for payment of interest by the promoter to the allottee at State Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending + 2% where the promoter fails to give possession of the apartment/plot/building in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement for sale in terms of section (4) of section 19.   As per the information collected by the complainant from the website of State Bank of India, the maximum marginal cost of lending rate is 8.7%.  This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party.  Adding 2% to the aforesaid rate, the complainants, in my view, are entitled to compensation in the form of interest @ 10.7% per annum, from the date of each payment.  

9.      The complaint is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions:

(i)      The opposite party shall pay the entire principal amount of ₹2,19,39,592/- to the complainants alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10.7% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.

(ii)      The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainants.

(iii)       The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.

 
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.