Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The Complainant executed an Agreement for Sale with the OP Nos. 1 to 4 on 18-01-2012 to facilitate purchase of the schedule flat at a consideration of Rs. 30,75,300/-. Out of the said consideration amount, the Complainant already paid Rs. 29,27,556/- on different dates. Unfortunately, although the scheduled time for completion of the flat lapsed, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 failed to handover the flat in question to her. What is worse, during physical verification, the Complainant noticed several defects in the said flat. In view of this, she served legal notice upon the OPs to refund the deposited sum, but in vain. Hence, this complaint case.
Notice could not be served upon the OPs through post for different reasons. As such, paper publication was made to apprise them about the pendency of this complaint case. However, as none of them turned up on the basis of such paper publication, the matter was heard ex parte.
Points for consideration
- Whether the complaint case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged.
- Whether the Complainant deserves any relief, as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
Complainant inked the Agreement for Sale with the OP Nos. 1 to 4 on 18-01-2012. In terms of the said agreement, the schedule flat was supposed to be handed over by August, 2015. However, till date the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have not discharged their contractual obligation for which, in our considered opinion, the cause of action is still continuing. In this regard, we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrator & Ors. v. Tej Refrigeration Industries, 2012 (4) CPR 230 (NC). Cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and pecuniary jurisdiction is also not a disputed issue.
In view of this, the complainant case is very much maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Undisputedly, the Complainant paid Rs. 29,27,556/- which has neither been refunded nor physical possession of the flat in question given to the Complainant. This clearly points out gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos. 1 to 4. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the case.
As the Complainant is interested to get back the deposited sum, we direct the OP Nos. 1 to 4 to refund the sum of Rs. 29,27,556/- to the Complainant within a period of 40 days hence along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid sum w.e.f. 16-11-2018 till full and final payment is made. OP Nos. 1 to 4 shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within the aforesaid specified time frame. In case of non-compliance of this order within the stipulated time, Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law.
