1.         This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 19.09.2012 of the State Commission in appeal no. 552 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 23.02.2012 of the District Commission in complaint no. 492 of 2011.

2.         We have heard the learned counsel for the two sides and have perused the record, including inter alia the Order dated 23.02.2012 of the District Commission, the Order dated 19.09.2012 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.         The matter relates to a builder - buyer dispute.

Briefly, the complainant (the respondent herein) had paid an amount of Rs. 7.60 lakh to the builder (the petitioner herein) as part payment towards the total consideration amount of Rs.15.20 lakh for a plot admeasuring 400 sq. yards in Block ‘A’ in the project known as ‘Parsvnath City Sonepat (Haryana)’. Aggrieved by not being allotted a plot in Block ‘A’ of the said project, the complainant approached the District Commission on 23.08.2011.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 23.02.2012 allowed the complaint, on contest, and, with its reasons given, ordered the builder to accept the balance consideration without interest, penalty or surcharge etc. and deliver physical possession of a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in Block ‘A’ out of plots no. 449 to 453 (except plot no. 452) to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation.

The builder appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 19.09.2012, dismissed the appeal, inter alia observing that “the OPs violated their own rules and regulations, terms and conditions as the OPs have mentioned that the allotment of plots as well as villas in their respective projects is done purely on the basis of FIRST COME FIRST SERVE. The OPs allotted plot No. 508 in block B to Faquir Chand against the application No. 313 whereas the application number of the complainant is 142 and till date the complainant has not been allotted any plot by the OPs. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is no force in the case of appellant/OPs. District Consumer Forum after considering each and every aspect of the case rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant”.

The builder filed the present revision petition before this Commission on 28.12.2012.

4.         In the interest of justice, to decide the matter on merit rather than to dismiss it on limitation, the short delay of 07 days in filing the petition is condoned. 

5.         Inter alia taking reference in the affidavits dated 21.04.2014, dated 09.10.2014 and dated 03.04.2019 which the builder had filed during the course of the revisional proceedings before this Commission, learned counsel for the builder submits on instructions that there is no plot available either in Block ‘A’ or anywhere else in the subject project. It will not be feasible for the builder to comply with the Order of the District Commission since the plot nos. mentioned in the said Order had already been sold and the concerned sale-deeds had already been registered in 2009 and 2010, prior to the date on which the District Commission passed its Order on 23.02.2012. Also it will not be feasible for the builder to allot any other plot either in Block ‘A’ or anywhere else in the subject project as no plot is available on date.

Learned counsel also submits that against the total consideration of Rs. 15.20 lakh only Rs. 7.60 lakh had been deposited by the complainant i.e. it is not a case where the total consideration had been paid but a plot had not been provided. He further submits that as per the applicable terms and conditions the deposited amount attracts interest at the rate of 9% if it is to be refunded.

Learned counsel furthermore submits that it is conscious of the way and manner the position has unfurled and wants to remedy the situation either by providing a similar plot of similar size in some other nearby project wherever it may be available or by providing just and equitable monetary compensation to the complainant.

6.         Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the builder has indulged in patent ‘deficiency in service’, as clearly determined by the two fora below. She also submits that the contention made on behalf of the builder that it will not be feasible to allot any plot either in Block ‘A’ or even anywhere else in the subject project bespeaks of disregard to the Orders of the two fora below. Learned counsel further submits that in addition to ‘deficiency in service’, ingredients of ‘unfair trade practice’ are also manifest on the part of the builder.

She furthermore submits that even after favourable Orders from the two fora below, the builder has lingered on the revisional proceedings before this Commission for almost a decade now. The learned counsel requests that the matter be appropriately and justly decided, and may not be allowed to be delayed further.

7.         During the course of the arguments, at this juncture, the learned counsel for both sides request for a brief interlude to seek respective instructions.

8.         After an interlude learned counsel for the builder submits on instructions that the builder is ready and willing to remedy the situation by providing a similar plot of similar size in some other proximal project of the builder wherever it may be available or in the alternative by refunding the deposited amount of Rs. 7.60 lakh with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till the date(s) of actual realization to the complainant. He further submits that in case refund with interest is acceptable the principal amount of Rs. 7.60 lakh with interest at the rate of 10% per annum which had been deposited with this Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 10.10.2014 may be forthwith released to the complainant along with interest if any accrued thereon while in deposit with this Commission and the balance amount after adjustment of the amount so released shall be made good by the builder within a period of six weeks from today.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits on instructions that the complainant does not want to take a similar plot of similar size in some other project but is ready and willing to accept refund of the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

9.         In the wake of the above submissions, the revision petition is disposed of with the directions contained below.

(i) Both sides have consented for refund with interest. The builder shall accordingly refund the principal amount of Rs. 7.60 lakh with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit to the date(s) of realization. The amount if any deposited by the builder with this Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 10.10.2014 along with interest if any accrued thereon while in deposit with this Commission shall be forthwith released by the Registrar of this Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure and after the due verification. The balance amount after adjustment of the amount so released shall be paid by the builder to the complainant within a period of six weeks from today (accompanied with a clear and cogent calculation-sheet).

(ii)        The revisional proceedings before this Commission, from 2012 onwards, have taken almost a decade. They have been unnecessarily and unjustifiably procrastinated by the builder, it could have forthwith resolved the matter without undue and pointless delay. Cost of litigation of Rs. 50,000/- shall hence be paid by the builder to the complainant within six weeks from today. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- is also imposed on the builder, to be deposited in the ‘consumer legal aid account’ of the District Commission within six weeks from today.

(iii)       This Order has been passed on the consent of the two sides and in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case (alone). As such this case shall not be treated as a precedent.

10.       Learned counsel for the builder submits on instructions that the directions as contained in para 9(i) to (ii) shall be complied with within the stipulated period.

11.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision and to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.