Haryana

StateCommission

A/456/2015

TANEJA DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARVESH JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY GHANGHAS

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       456 of 2015

Date of Institution:       06.05.2015

Date of Decision :        18.11.2015

 

1.     Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Limited UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.     The Branch Manager, Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Panipat Limited, T.D.I. City, Sector 38-39, Panipat through their authorized signatory Shri O.P. Dhinga.

                                     Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Parvesh Jain s/o Sh. T.C. Jain, Resident of House No.571-572, Pocket A-1, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi-110085.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Taneja Developers & Infrastructure (TDI) Panipat Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) and another-Opposite Parties, are in appeal against the order dated April 6^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.130 of 2014 filed by Parvesh Jain-complainant/respondent, was accepted directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.4,37,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization, Rs.20,000/- compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

2.      The respondent/complainant booked a flat with the TDI-opposite parties by paying Rs.4,37,500/- on January 31^st, 2006 to the builder vide receipt (Annexure C-1). By filing complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that the builder/opposite parties did not allot the flat to him despite repeated requests.

3.      The opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply taking plea that the complainant did not pay the balance price of the flat and therefore the booking was cancelled vide letter dated 22^nd April, 2011. No request for any allotment or raising of demand was ever made by the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has argued that since the booking was cancelled in the year of 2011, therefore from that onwards they were not liable to pay interest to the complainant.

5.      The question that arises for determination is that from which date the opposite parties are liable to pay interest.

6.      To decide the issue Clause (c) of the Advance Registration Form (Annexure R-1) is relevant which reads as under:-

“c)     In case the company is not in a position to make offer of allotment for a residential plot within a period of 6 months from the date of my/our application, we shall have the right to withdraw the money and ask for refund by giving 30 days notice along with interest calculated @ 15% p.a. from the date of payment of registration deposit.”

7.      It is not the case of the appellants/opposite parties that offer of allotment was made within the agreed period of six months. Therefore, once the appellants have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, they cannot take the plea that at later date they had demanded the balance price of the flat and for non-payment of the same, the booking was cancelled. Once the appellants/opposite parties themselves were at fault, then after six years the cancellation of the booking of flat carries no meaning. Therefore, they are liable to pay interest from the date of deposit till the date of its realization.

8.      In view of the above, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 18.11.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL