Haryana

StateCommission

CC/340/2018

DEEPAK GAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

12 Feb 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.340 of  2018

Date of the Institution:29.05.2018

Date of Decision: 12.02.2020

Deepak Gaur S/o Sh.Ram Bhagat Gaur, R/o H.No.627/22, Bharatpuri Colony, Kath Mandi, Sonepat.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

1.      Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Parsvnath City Sonepat, Haryana through its Site Manager.

2.      Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Parsvnath Royale, 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 through its Chief Executive Officer/Director (Email:

                                                .….Opposite Parties

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

Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:-    Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for opposite parties (Defence of the O.Ps. was struck off vide order dated 29.01.2019).

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The brief facts giving rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that initially Sh. N.K.Chauhan booked villa No.A-296 situated in Parsvnath City Sonepat in the year 2005. Upto 19.02.2008 Sh.N.K.Chauhan deposited Rs.16,69,429/- with the O.Ps.  Agreement was entered between the parties on 19.02.2008.  The complainant purchased the villa on 22.02.2008 with permission from the opposite parties. The villa was transferred in his name.  The basic costs of the villa was Rs.22,50,000/- . The total costs of the villa was Rs.25,86,257/- including PLC, EDC IDC charges. He took loan of Rs.eight lacs from Bank of Baroda.  A Tripartite Agreement was entered between Bank of Baroda, complainant and opposite parties on 03.03.2008.  As per the agreement, the payment was to be made as per construction linked plan for villas.  The villa No.A 296 in Block A was allotted to the complainant on 19.02.3008.  The O.Ps. demanding the payments from him without any construction of the villa. The complainant deposited all the installments without any delay.  He also paid loan installments along with interest @10% to the Bank of Baroda regularly and thus has now paid the entire loan amount and nothing was due against the bank of Baroda.  The details of the payments made against the villa No.A-296 (flat No.293-A wrongly mentioned in the complaint) is as under:-

As per the agreement, the OPs were liable to handover the possession of the villa within 18 months from the date of execution of the allotment. The complainant has paid the total sale price of the villa to the O.Ps. The O.Ps. failed to deliver the possession of the villa within stipulated period.  He requested the O.Ps. to refund the amount alongwith interest, but, O.Ps. have failed to refund the amount. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and indulged in mal trade practices.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.Ps. and they appeared through their counsel Sh. Satpal Dhamija, thereafter on  20.08.2018, the case was adjourned for filing written version of opposite parties, their on 18.09.2018 and then for 04.10.2018, but no written version was filed, costs of Rs.5000/- was imposed on 04.10.2018 and  case was adjourned for 25.10.2018, still no reply was filed by the O.Ps. Even cost of Rs.5000/- was not paid.  Another cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on 30.11.2018 upon the opposite parties, but, this costs was also not paid by the O.Ps. The defence of O.Ps was struck off vide order dated 29.01.2019.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, counsel for the complainant tendered the affidavit (Ex.CW1/A) of complainant in his evidence vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

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

5.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the basic and 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 has already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

6.                While unfolding the arguments it has been argued by Pardeep Solath, the learned counsel for the complainant that as far as the executing the buyers agreement  is concerned, it is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the basic price of the villa was Rs.22,50,000/- (excluding GST).  It is also not in dispute that the flat was transferred in the name of the complainant.  It is not disputed that complainant had raised a loan of Rs.Eight lacs from Bank of Baroda for purchasing the villa.  It is also not disputed that loan amount of Rs.Eight lacs  has been paid by the complainant .  A total sum of Rs.25,86,257/- had been paid by the complainant to the  O.Ps.  As per the buyers agreement  and the terms and conditions incorporated therein including date of delivery of the possession of the villa, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the O.Ps. within 18+6 months.  However inspite of the fact that total amount stands paid. The period within which, the possession of the villa was to be delivered had already expired and under these circumstances the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the refund of the amount alongwith interest, which he had already paid. 

7.                On the other hand, it has been argued by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, the learned counsel for the O.Ps that the amount which the complainant had paid, has not been paid as per the repayment schedule.  There was a delay in making the payment of the amount.  It is true that the documents were executed between the initial allottee, which includes the buyers agreement, which contains all the terms and conditions for allotment of the villa, for payment of the installments, charging the interest for delayed payment and delivering of possession etc.  Since there were a unavoidable circumstances and there was certain reasons which were beyond the control of the O.Ps. the possession of the villa could not be delivered to the complainant in time.  However on one pretext or the other the possession was not taken and now by taking the shelter of this Commission, the complainant seeks refund of the amount and infact this amount has already been invested for making all developmental activities.  As per terms and conditions of the agreement,  O.Ps. were required  to deliver the possession of the villa within 18+ 6 months  from the commencement of construction.  The complainant has no right to demand the refund as builder has not refused to complete the development work and offer possession of villa to the complainant. 

8.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, villa was allotted to Sh. N.K.Chauhan and the complainant is subsequent buyer.  The total amount of Rs.25,86,257/- (Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred And Fifty Seven Only) had been paid. As per buyer agreement, the possession of the villa was to be delivered within period of 18+6 months complete  in all respects.   To the utter surprise of this Commission and it is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than 14 years had expired, the possession of the villa has not been delivered by O.Ps.    As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps. It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps  that they would collect the hard earned money from the individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  As a result thereof the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.25,86,257/- (Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred And Fifty Seven Only) which he had already deposited with the O.Ps.  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and the possession has not been delivered within the stipulated period and under the constraint circumstances, the complainant had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.  In such like cases  the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals.  As such the question is answered in the affirmative and there is deficiency in services and O.Ps. have indulged in mal-trade practices also.

9.                Hence with the above observation and discussion there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.Ps. are directed to refund of the amount of Rs.25,86,257/- (Twenty Five Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred And Fifty Seven Only)  alongwith interest @ 09%  per annum from  the date of respective deposits till realization.   In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled  of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.21,000/-  (Twenty One Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 25 and 27 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

February 12th, 2020        Ram Singh Chaudhary,             T.P.S.Mann,                                        Judicial Member                        President                                  

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)