Haryana

StateCommission

A/1059/2016

SUNCITY PROJECTS - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUSHP RANI GAMBHIR - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL AGGARWAL

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1059 of 2016

Date of Institution:      04.11.2016

Date of Decision :       14.12.2016

1.     M/s Suncity Projects Private Limited through its Managing Director, Office: Suncity Business Tower Second Floor, Sector-54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon.

2.     Laxmi Narain Goel, Chairman, Suncity Projects Private Limited, Office: Suncity Business Tower Second Floor, Sector-54, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Pushpa Rani Gambhir w/o Sh. Manohar Lal Gambhir, Resident of 327, Old Housing Board Colony, Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Atul Aggarwal, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated October 3^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.567 of 2015.

2.                One Kanta Devi applied for a flat measuring 1200 square feet with M/s Suncity Project Private Limited-Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) in 2010.  Thereafter, Pushpa Rani Gambhir-complainant (respondent herein) purchased the booking of the flat from Kanta Devi on 26^th February, 2011. The complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.17,61,519/- to the builder and the remaining amount was to be paid as per payment plan. She was allotted flat No.A106 measuring 1250 square feet in Sector 36A, Rohtak vide allotment letter dated 31^st August, 2013.  The possession was to be delivered by 31^st December, 2013. However, the builder failed to start construction of the flat even after expiry of three years, so possession could not be delivered within the stipulated period. The complainant sought refund of the amount deposited which the builder refused. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.                Opposite Parties-builder contested complaint raising plea that at the time of booking the size of the flat was tentative and it was increased from 1200 square feet to 1250 square feet. It was denied that the builder had given any assurance to deliver possession up to 31^st December, 2013. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the builder-opposite parties as under:-

“…..it is directed that the opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.17,61,519/- (Rupees seventeen lacs sixty one thousand five hundred & nineteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposits till its actual realization, and to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.”

5.                Indisputably, the flat was booked with the builder in 2010. The complainant purchased the booking of the flat on 26^th February, 2011 and flat No.A106 measuring 1250 square feet in Sector 36A, Rohtak was allotted vide allotment letter dated 31^st August, 2013. The possession was to be delivered up to 31^st December, 2013 but the builder failed to offer possession. In this view of the matter, it is established that the builder was deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant within the stipulated period. Non completion of flat as per agreed schedule is by itself a deficiency in service on the part of builder.

6.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh, 2004(5) SCC 65, has held that if the possession is not delivered in time, the allottee is entitled to get compensation.

7.                In Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1) SCC 243 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when possession of property is not delivered within stipulated period, the delay so caused is denial of service and the allottee is entitled for the refund of the amount paid with reasonable interest.

8.                In view of the above, the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant, alongwith interest and compensation. No case for interference is made out.

9.                Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

10.              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 14.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL