RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Complaints No. 219 of 2016
Shri Trilok Sharma s/o Sr. Moti Ram,
R/o D4/104, Sect-4, Aravali Heights,
Dwarikadish, Dahruhera,
Distt. Rewari, Haryana ….Complainant.
Versus
Parsvanath Developers Ltd. through its Chairman,
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro
Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 …Opposite Party.
Complaints No. 332 of 2016
Shri Sanjeev Kumar aged about 46 years,
s/o Sri. Anil Kumar Singh, R/o Falt No.12,
Second Floor, Sector-A, Marigold Apartments,
Mahanagar, Lucknow. ….Complainant.
Versus
Parsvanath Developers Ltd. through its Chairman,
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro
Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 …Opposite Party.
Complaints No. 344 of 2016
1- Shri Arun Kumar Bansal, aged about 43 years,
s/o Sri Gyan Chand Bansal.
2- Smt. Shailee Bansal, aged about 38 years,
w/o Sri Arun Kumar Bansal,
R/o A-30, Officers Colony, Mawana Sugar Works,
Mawana, Distt. Meerut (U.P.) ….Complainants.
Versus
Parsvanath Developers Ltd. through its Chairman,
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro
Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 …Opposite Party.
(2)
Complaints No. 117 of 2017
Anupam Khare, aged about 47 years,
s/o Late Shi I.B. Khare, R/o 206, Shiva Palace,
Munshi Pulia, Lucknow. ….Complainant.
Versus
Parsvanath Developers Ltd. through its Chairman,
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro
Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 …Opposite Party.
Complaints No. 118 of 2017
Prashant Khare, aged about 34 years,
s/o Late Shi P.C. Khare, R/o C-84,
Indira Nagar, Lucknow. ….Complainant.
Versus
Parsvanath Developers Ltd. through its Chairman,
Mr. Pradeep Jain, Registered Office, Parsvnath Metro
Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 …Opposite Party.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Shri Rohit Chandra, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Rajesh Chaddha, Advocate for Opposite party.
Date 25.6.2016
JUDGMENT
Above five complaints have been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this State Commission against same opposite party Parsvnath Developer Ltd. by five different complainants with identical averments and prayer. Therefore, all the above five complaints are being decided by a common judgment.
Relief claimed in each complaint is extracted below.
Complaint no.219 of 2016
- Order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000.00 as booking amount on receipt no.LK200120, LK200127, LK200129, Customer
-
code no.B99/N0004 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for deficiency in service, till the date of final payment.
- Order the opposite party to pay compensation/ damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant since 2009.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as cost for filing the complaint.
- Pass any other suitable order as the court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the complainant.
Complaint no.332 of 2016
a. Order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000.00 as booking amount on receipt no.LK200123, Customer code no.B99/A0012 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for deficiency in service, till the date of final payment.
- Order the opposite party to pay compensation/ damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant since 2012.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as cost for filing the complaint.
- Pass any other suitable order as the court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the complainant.
Complaint no.344 of 2016
- Order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000.00 as booking amount on receipt no.LK200319, Customer code no.B99/P0018 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for deficiency in service, till the date of final payment.
- Order the opposite party to pay compensation/ damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant since 2012.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as cost for filing the complaint.
- Pass any other suitable order as the court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the complainant.
-
Complaint no.117 of 2017
- Order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,45,000.00 as booking amount on receipt no.LK200210, LK200348, LK200349. Customer code no.B99/S0035 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for deficiency in service, till the date of final payment.
- Order the opposite party to pay compensation/ damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant since 2012.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as cost for filing the complaint.
- Pass any other suitable order as the court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the complainant.
Complaint no.118 of 2017
- Order the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,45,000.00 as booking amount on receipt no.LK200211, LK200350, LK200351. Customer code no.B99/S0036 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for deficiency in service, till the date of final payment.
- Order the opposite party to pay compensation/ damages amounting to Rs.20,00,000.00 for mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant since 2012.
- Pay a sum of Rs.50,000.00 as cost for filing the complaint.
- Pass any other suitable order as the court may deem fit and proper in the interest of the complainant.
In each complaint, it has been averred by complainant/ complainants that he/they got booking for purchasing unit in group housing scheme of opposite party through transfer by making payment of booking amount to previous applicant/ applicants and the transfer was accepted by opposite party.
Name of previous applicant/applicants and booking amount paid to him by respective complainant/complainants is given below.
(5)
Complaint no. | Name of previous Applicant | Amount paid by respective complainant. |
C 219/2016 | Mr. N.D. Maurya Mrs. Meena Maurya | Rs.1,65,000.00 |
C 332/2016 | Mr. Ajit Pal Singh | Rs.2,10,000.00 |
C 344/2016 | M/s Property Ways | Rs.2,10,000.00 |
C 117/2017 | Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal | Rs.2,45,000.00 |
C 118/2017 | Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal | Rs.2,45,000.00 |
In each complaint it has been stated by complainant/ complainants that the opposite party did not start construction work even after permission of L.D.A. and sold the land of proposed site of group housing scheme. Thus, the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service.
Opposite party has filed written statement wherein it has been stated that each complainant has given affidavit cum undertaking wherein he has accepted that in case flat is not allotted by the opposite party, the complainant shall accept refund of amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of acceptance of nomination.
In written statement filed in each complaint it has been stated by opposite party that the opposite party had sent cheque to respective complainant for payment of deposited amount with interest but complainants of complaints no.117 and 118 of 2017 have returned cheques showing willingness to continue booking whereas letter sent to complainants of complaints no.332 and 344 of 2016 alongwith cheque of respective complainant has been returned unserved. Only complainant of complaint no.219 of 2016 has accepted payment of refund.
(6)
In written statement filed in each complaint it has been stated by opposite party that the relief claimed by complainant can be granted only by civil court. Cause of action has not arisen for filing complaint. Complaint should be dismissed.
In each complaint preliminary issue raised by opposite party regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of complaint has already been decided vide order dated 14.9.2018.
In all complaints affidavits have been filed by both parties in support of their pleadings.
Learned counsel Mr. Rohit Chandra appeared for complainant in each complaint.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Rajesh Chaddha appeared for opposite party in each complaint.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused records. I have perused written argument filed on behalf of each complainant.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party that complainants are prospective buyers. They are not consumers as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party.
Indisputably, each complainant has got registration on payment of booking amount for purchasing unit in the scheme of opposite party. As such, each complainant has paid consideration to opposite party for availing services of opposite party for getting consideration in allotment of unit in scheme concerned.
(7)
Thus, each complainant is a consumer of opposite party for getting service of opposite party to the extent of getting consideration in allotment of unit in scheme of opposite party. But the opposite party has abandoned the scheme and has cancelled the booking of each complainant. As such, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service assured by booking of the unit.
In view of discussion made above, complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In affidavit filed by Mr. Ajay Kashyap, General Manager of opposite party in complaints no. 117 of 2017, 118 of 2017, 332 of 2016 and 344 of 2016, it has been stated that the opposite party has already sent cheque to respective complainant for payment of deposited amount with interest. But complainants of complaints no.117 and 118 of 2017 have returned cheques showing willingness to continue booking whereas cheques sent to complainants of complaints no.332 and 344 of 2016 have been returned undelivered.
The under taking given by complainant in affidavit to accept refund of deposited amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum is applicable in ordinary situation when complainant was considered by opposite party for allotment of unit but could not get allotment. In present complaints the opposite party has invited booking of unit and has booked units after taking booking amount. But later on opposite party has abandoned scheme and sold land of site of proposed scheme. As such, opposite party has committed unfair trade practice. Therefore, undertaking given by complainant is not applicable in present situation which has arisen due to unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.
(8)
Considering the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of K.A. Nagmani vs. Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board reported in III(2016) CPJ 18 (SC), I find it appropriate and proper to order refund of deposited amount to respective complainant/ complainants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of nomination till date of actual payment.
Complainant of complaint no.219 of 2016 has already accepted refund without any protest. He is not entitled to get above relief. Complaint no.219 of 2016 is liable to be dismissed.
Since the amount deposited by complainants of complaints no.117 of 2017, 118 of 2017, 332 of 2016 and 344 of 2016 is being refunded with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, I do not find it appropriate to grant further relief claimed by complainant/complainants. But Rs.10,000.00 should be paid by opposite party as cost of litigation to complainant/complainants of each complaint seperately.
In view of conclusion drawn above, complaints no.117 of 2017, 118 of 2017, 332 of 2016 and 344 of 2016 mentioned above are allowed partly and opposite party is ordered to refund the amount deposited by respective complainant/complainants to him/them with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of nomination of respective complainant/complainants till date of payment. Opposite party shall further pay Rs.10,000.00 to complainant/ complainants of each complaint seperately as cost of litigation.
Complaint no.219 of 2016 mentioned above is dismissed. In this complaint parties shall bear their own costs.
(9)
The original judgment be kept on the record of complaint no.219 of 2016 and its certified copies be placed in the records of remaining four complaints.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)
President
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
