Haryana

StateCommission

CC/207/2015

PARKASH KAUR SAHOTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.GHARUAN

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     207 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                   23.11.2015

                                       Date of Decision                              22.09.2016

 

 

 

 

Parkash Kaur Sahota w/o Sh. Paramjit Singh Sahota, Resident of House No.2128, Phase 10, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Raheja Developers Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 215-216, Rectangle-One, D-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      M/s Raheja Developers Private Limited, Marketing Office at Raheja’s Atlantis, Sector 31-32A, Jharsa Road, Gurgaon, Haryana through its authorised signatory.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Argued by:          Shri H.S. Gharaun, Advocate assisted by Shri Nirmal Singh Dhjillon, Power of Attorney of complainant.

                             Opposite Parties exparte.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                   Parkash Kaur Sahota-complainant, booked one Apartment G-0102, measuring 1755 Square feet, Ist Floor, Tower-G, in a project of M/s Raheja Developers Private Limited-Opposite Parties (for short ‘the builder’) known as “Atharva Exclusive Luxury Gomes Sector 109, Gurgaon”. The basic sale price of the apartment was Rs.46,75,320/-. Besides the complainant was to pay Preferential Location Charges (PLC); External and Infrastructural Development Charges; Charges for covered Car parking; interest bearing Maintenance Security and Club Membership Charges. The complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs. 56,00,995/- to the builder.

2.                A Flat Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-1) was executed between the parties on December 31^st, 2008. The possession of the flat was to be offered to the complainant within thirty six months from the date of the execution of the agreement, that is, by December 31^st, 2011 but subject to force majeure circumstances and reasons beyond the control of the builder. The price of the flat was to be paid as per Payment Plan. The complainant paid Rs.60,21,802/- to the builder but the possession was not offered. He requested for refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest and but the builder did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) has been filed before this Commission.

3.                The builder-Opposite Parties did not appear despite the notice being served; hence, the opposite parties were proceeded exparte.

4.                Nirmal Singh Dhillon-General Power Attorney holder of the complainant tendered his affidavit besides documents Exhibits C-1 to C-6.

5.                The question for consideration before this Commission is as to whether the builder defaulted in delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant or not?

6.                Indisputably, the complainant had booked a flat with the builder.  Flat Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-1) was executed between the parties on December 31^st, 2008. Flat No.G-0102 at Atharva Sector 109, Gurgaon was allotted to the complainant on the same day, that is, 31^st December, 2008. The complainant paid Rs.60,21,802/- to the builder.  As per Clause 4.2 of the agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given within thirty six months of signing the agreement, that is, by December 31^st, 2011 but the builder failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  Nirmal Singh Dhillon-GPA holder of the complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. 

7.                In view of above, the complaint is allowed. M/s Raheja Developers Private Limited-opposite party/builder is directed to pay Rs.60,21,802/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs, Twenty One Thousands, Eight Hundreds and Two Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the builder within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.

 

Announced 22.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL