Haryana

StateCommission

CC/209/2015

JAI PARKASH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAS GOVERNMENT PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SIMARPREET KAUR

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No.  :      209 of 2015

Date of Institution:   27.11.2015

Date of Decision :    22.11.2016

 

 

 

Jai Parkash Gupta son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of 167/3, Sector-16, Moti Nagar, Karnal.

                                      ….Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      RAS Developments Pvt. Ltd., 812-812-A, Chiranjiv Tower, 43, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110019, Through its Director.

2.      RAS Developments Pvt. Ltd., # 336, First Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal-132007, Through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

                                      …Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          On November 16^th, 2012 Jai Parkash Gupta-complainant booked a flat with RAS Developments Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘builder’)-Opposite Parties vide receipts Exhibit C-3. The total basic price of the flat was Rs.29,54,900/-. The complainant paid Rs.28,22,000/- to the builder. He was allotted Unit No.K-104, RAS Residency, Sector 35, Karnal. Flat Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-2) was executed between the complainant and the builder on 11.12.2012. As per Clause 2.2 of the Flat buyers’ agreement (Exhibit C-2) the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of signing the agreement. The builder failed to deliver the possession to the complainant within the stipulated period. The complainant requested for refund the amount paid by him but to no avail. Hence, he filed complaint before this Commission.  

2.      In written version, the builder took preliminary objections viz. the complaint is pre-mature and suppression of material facts.  On merits, it is pleaded that 90% of the construction has been completed.  The complainant himself is not interested to take possession of the flat and that merely on the basis of apprehension, the claim of the complainant cannot be considered for any relief when he himself is not aware about the factual position of the project.  Denying the remaining averments of the complaint, the builder prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      The complainant Jai Parkash Gupta in his evidence examined himself as CW1 and tendered his affidavit alongwith documents Exhibits C1 to C-9.

4.      The builder in its evidence tendered affidavit of Gurbaj Singh, authorized agent alongwith documents Exhibit R-1 and Exhibit R-2 respectively.

5.      It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had booked the flat on November 16^th, 2012.  A perusal of the Flat Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-2) shows that basic sale price of the flat was Rs.29,54,900/-.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid Rs.28,22,000/- but still possession of the flat was not delivered though it was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of signing the agreement.    

6.      Clause 2.2 of the agreement (Exhibit C-2) reads as under:-

“2.2.  That the Developer shall endeavor to complete the construction work of the “Said Unit” within a period of Thirty Six (36) months from the date hereof or the date of sanctioning of building plans or approvals from Ministry of Environment/Department of Fire Fighting/Local Authorities, or any other sanction by the competent authority, whichever is later, subject to Allottee(s) having complied all terms of this agreement, fulfilled, documentations, etc and timely remitted all payments, installments and dues as and when demanded by Developer.  Thereafter, the Developer is entitled for additional time required in applying and obtaining the Occupation Certificate in respect of the said unit to Allottee(s).”

7.      The builder in its evidence tendered the affidavit of Gurbaj Singh, who merely stated that 90% of the construction has been completed.  The builder did not lead any cogent and convincing evidence on record to show that the construction has been completed or they have offered possession to the occupants within the agreed period.  Even after expiry of one year, the builder did not show anything about the construction.  The act and conduct of the builder clearly shows that they are deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the flat even after more than four years of signing the agreement. The construction has still not been completed. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The builder is directed to refund Rs.28,22,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its actual realisation. The builder shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  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 22.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 DK