Haryana

StateCommission

CC/536/2017

DR. SUKHVIR SINGH RATHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRABHU SHANTI REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHEENU GUPTA

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                                                                              Date of Institution:04.09.2017

                Date of final hearing:10.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement:10.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.536 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Prof. (Dr.) Sukhvir Singh Rathi, Retd. S/o Shri Bhale Ram R/o H.No.1446, Sector-3, Rohtak-124001.

                                                                                      .….Complainant

 

Through counsel Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate

 

Versus

 

Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1214, Sector -6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar-124507.

….Opposite party

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

                   None for the opposite party (defence already struck off vide order dated 06.02.2019).

 

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for disposal of present complaint are that complainant booked a floor with OP by depositing Rs.5,00,000/- as advance registration amount along with application No.2119 for the purpose of allotment of 3BHK Flat in PDM Hi-Tech Homes, Sector-3A, Sarai Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar on 01.03.2013. After payment of earnest money, the complainant paid his first installment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 19.07.2013 as demanded by the OP. It is further submitted that the opposite party deliberately omitted the application No.2119 from the draw of lots of the flat held on 19.01.2014 by claiming that the complainant has not deposited the requisite amount as per the payment plan. The complainant tried to convince the offices of company that incorrect information regarding payment plan was given by the officials itself. It is submitted that after this great deficiency, the opposite party demanded second installment of Rs.5,00,000/- and complainant paid the same on 23.01.2014. In this way, the opposite party received 21.14% of the total sale consideration prior to allotment of the flat whereas as per the schedule plan only 10% was to be paid at the time of booking and rest 15% at the time of allotment in lieu of the allotted unit. Thereafter, the OP demanded total due amount of Rs.6,93,585/- on 10.05.2014. The complainant raised objection that the demand raised by the opposite party is completely illegal as the opposite party has accumulative deposit of 31.71% instead of 25% as per the payment schedule. Later, the complainant was assured that after depositing the demanded amount, the unit will be allotted in his name. The unit was allotted later on, without any draw etc. just by fulfilling their arbitrary demands that were totally in contradiction with the terms and conditions laid by the opposite party itself. The complainant was surprised, when he came to know that the allotment letter was dated 22.01.2014 whereas the same was issued to him on 21.06.2014. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 09.07.2014 mentioning all his objections in this regard but the opposite party kept silent about retrospective date of allotment of flat. It is further submitted that on receipt of letter dated 15.07.2014, the complainant visited the office of opposite party to contact the official of company but all in vain. The opposite party vide letter dated 05.08.2014 cancelled the allotment of flat by forfeiting the amount deposited in lieu of the allotment of the unit. The complainant visited the office of opposite party many times to settle the matter but to no response. The complainant again received a letter dated 23.02.2015 demanding Rs.10,86,489/-. Thereafter, the complainant again requested the opposite party for early settlement of financial losses but all in vain. The complainant further submitted that due to wrong legal advice by the earlier counsel, he approached the Hon’ble National Commission by way of filing a complaint CC No.506/2017 and the same was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction with a liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate forum. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of rs.15,00,000/- along with interest @24% p.a. to be compounded quarterly; to pay Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.44,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.                 Upon notice, opposite party appeared, but, did not file the written version despite availing four opportunities as well as cost of Rs.5,000/- also remained not paid. Hence this Commission vide order dated 06.02.2019 struck off the defence of OP.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence has been led during the proceedings of the complaint had 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 complainant, the basic and foremost questions which requires adjudication by this Commission as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he has already deposited alongwith the interest? 

6.                After careful perusal of the entire record, which is not rebutted, it stands proved that the complainant booked a flat with OP by paying Rs.5,00,000/- as booking amount. An agreement dated 22.01.2014 also came into existence between the parties (Ex. C-5). As per the said agreement, basic sale price of the flat was agreed to be Rs.47,08,900/-. As per the complainant, despite payment of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3) to the opposite party, the construction was not completed by the opposite party. Complainant requested for settlement of issues and refund of deposited amount (letter Ex.C-15). Since the project is not complete and possession is delayed much beyond the stipulated time, this Commission is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus, the complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of balance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs only) which he had already deposited with the OP. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still remained deprived of the possession of the apartment and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lakhs only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on:10^th April, 2023

 

                                                                                                                                   

 

 

 Manjula

(Member)     

           

 

 

M.S.