Haryana

StateCommission

A/1069/2015

cmd pardesi developers pvt.ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUSHPA DAHRA - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.CHHABRA

08 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1069 of 2015

Date of Institution:        15.12.2015

Date of Decision :         08.02.2016

 

M/s CMD Pardesi Developers Private Limited, Office 801, Crown Height, Sector-10, Rohini, Delhi-85, through its authorized representative Sh. Ved Prakash Sachdev.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Smt. Pushpa Dahra wife of late Daya Nand Dahra, Resident of House No12/521, Batra Colony, Rishi Nagar, Sonipat.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri A.K. Chhabra, Advocate, assisted by Shri Ved Parkash-authorised representative, for appellant. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s CMD Pardesi Developers Private Limited–Opposite Party is in appeal against the order dated 18^th November, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.65 of 2015.

2.      Pushpa Dahra-Complainant/respondent, booked a flat in the upcoming housing project known as Ushay Towers of   appellant/opposite party. She was allotted flat No.304, 3^rd Floor, Tower Cherry; she deposited Rs.4.00 on 22.02.2006. Thereafter also, the respondent deposited different amounts against receipts. The appellant not carrying out the project, the respondent filed criminal complaint against the appellant, wherein, the appellant being summoned, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and as per the said compromise, the respondent deposited further sum of Rs.3.00 lacs on 29.01.2011, besides sum of Rs.2,65,378/- on 12.03.2011 and Rs.2.00 lacs on 14.05.2011. Still flats not being delivered, she filed the present complaint.

3.      The appellant/opposite party contested complaint by filing reply raising plea regarding non-maintainability of complaint. The booking of flat and the payments were admitted. It was stated that the payments were made as per schedule and that the sanctioning authority had extended/revalidated the plan till July, 2018. It was further submitted that the project was at finishing stage.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint by granting following relief:-

“…we hereby direct the respondent to pay lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) to complainant for deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. The respondent is further directed to hand over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the respondent shall pay 09% per annum interest to the complainant on the net deposited amount from the date of passing of this order till handing over the physical possession of the flat to the complainant.”

5.      Aggrieved opposite party/appellant, has come up in appeal.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the building plan has been revalidated till July, 2018, besides that no builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent/complainant.

7.      It is not disputed that the flat was booked in the year 2006 and is not ready as yet even. Keeping in view the defence stated by the appellant in its reply, the District Forum has rightly held the appellant as deficient in service and directed to hand over possession of flat within 60 days failing which the appellant shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited from the date of order till possession besides a lump sum compensation. Since the appellant has utilized the amount for nearly ten years and despite receipt of huge amount failed to deliver possession, this Commission does not find any illegality in the impugned order. No case for interference is made out.

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

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

 

Announced 08.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL