Haryana

StateCommission

CC/45/2014

Satish Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Royal Empire Society - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.45 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 04.09.2015                  Date of Decision: 21.12.2016

 

Satish Sharma S/o late Sh.Gauri Dutt Sharma R/o B-5, Dev Bhumi Apartments, Power House Road, Solan, District Solan (H.P.)

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Royale Empire Society, Site office: Peer Muchalla (Adjoining Sector 20 Panchkula, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through his Managing director (Jeevan Garg), 2^nd Address: 909 Sector-9, Panchkula.

2.      M/s Royale Empire Society, Site office: Peer Muchalla (Adjoining Sector 20 Panchkula), Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through partner (Prince Garg), 2^nd Address: 909, Sector-9, Panchkula.

3.      Royale Empire Residents Welfare Society, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through General Secretary.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr. S.K.Rohilla, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by complainant that he booked flat NO.603 Block N measuring 14900 sq. feet having super area  1800 sq. feet with opposite parties (O.Ps.) and agreement was executed on 02.07.2011.  The price of the flat was settled as Rs.42,00,000/- and out of the same he paid Rs.20,50,000/- which are detailed as under:-

                        “Sr.      Date                            cheque Nos.    Amounts

                        No.

1.         07.02.2011                  408559            Rs.50,000/-

2.         06.04.2011                  004266            Rs.1,75,000/-

3.         07.04.2011                  004267            Rs.1,75,000/-

4.         17.05.2011                  408522            Rs.10,00,000/-

5.         29.12.2011                  004292            Rs.1,25,000/-

6.         30.12.2011                  004291            Rs.1,75,000/-

7.         16.04.2013                  042961            Rs.70,000/-

8.         27.04.2013                  Cash                Rs.30,000/-

9.         Booking amount          Cash                Rs.2,50,000/-

                                                Total                Rs.20,50,000/-“

O.Ps. promised to deliver possession very soon, but, construction has not started till date. Legal notice was also served, but, without any result. O.ps. be directed to refund the amount in question alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit alongwith compensation of Rs.20/- lacs for blocking money for more than two years and Rs.6300/- per month due to delay in handing over possession within 18 to 21 months from the date of agreement. O.ps. are liable to pay compensation @ Rs.3.50/- per sq. feet qua 1800 sq. feet i.e. Rs.1300/- per month and penal interest @ 04% per annum besides Rs.50,000/- as of litigation expenses.

2.      It is alleged by O.Ps. that at the time of booking, complainant assured to make payment as per schedule agreed in between them.  After depositing aforesaid amount, he backed out from his promise due to heavy fall in the prices of property. As he did not pay balance amount in accordance with terms and conditions of agreement, he is not entitled for the relief claimed. It is also alleged that this commission is not having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint because  property is situated within the state of Punjab  and no transaction took place at Panckula.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, estopple, accruing cause of action, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      Both the parties have led their evidence.

4.      Arguments heard. File perused.

5.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that agreement to sell Ex.C-1 dated 02.07.2011 was executed at Panchkula. So, even if property is situated within District Mohali, this commission is having jurisdiction to try the complaint because cause of action accrued at this place. He further argued that possession was to be  delivered within 18-21 months from the date of agreement i.e. up to the month of January 2013 and late to late by month of May 2013, but, O.P. did not deliver possession till the date of filing of complaint in the year 2014.  Even no construction is going on at the spot, so he is entitled for the refund of the amount already deposited by him alongwith the interest and other relief as mentioned above.

6.      On the other hand learned counsel for the O.Ps. vehemently argued that property is situated at Peer Muchalla District Mohali, Punjab, so Haryana State Commission is not having territorial jurisdiction  to try this complaint.  The complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed because he did not make payment as per schedule agreed in between them, so his complaint be dismissed.

7.      The arguments of O.Ps. counsel qua territorial jurisdiction cannot be  accepted because from the perusal of agreement Ex.C-1 it is clear that same was executed at Panchkula.  O.P.No.1 is also having his office at Panchkula. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“This agreement to sell is made at panchkula on this 2^nd day of July 2011.

BETWEEN

1. ROYALE EMPIRE.# 909, SECTOR-9, PANCHKULA, HARYANA,

(Hereinafter referred to as the seller which term shall, where the context so admits, include his/her assignees, executors, successors, legal representative and administrators) of the one part.

AND

ii).      Mr. Satish Sharma s/o Late Sh.Gauri Dutt Sharma R/p B.S.Dev Bhumi Apartments Power House Road Saproon Tehsil and Distt. Solan (H.P).”

          From the bare perusal of this portion it is clear that not only the agreement was executed at this place, but, O.P.No.1 is also having it’s office at this place. So this commission is  having territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint as provided under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).

8.      Now the question comes about the refund of the amount. It is not disputed by the O.Ps. that the complainant has deposited Rs.20,50,000/-, as mentioned above. The only ground of the O.Ps. is that he did not make payments regularly as agreed in between them.  No doubt the complainant has failed to adhere payment schedule as agreed in between them.  

From the perusal of Ex.C-1 it is clear that it was not construction linked payment plan. As per this agreement complainant was supposed to pay the installments as per schedule mentioned therein.  For ready reference the date of payment and date of schedule are reproduced as under:-

          “Payment plan of Royale Empire

            Instalment No.               Instalment due on          Amount

                                                                                    (Rs.)

            Booking Amount                                               1,350,000/-

            Instalment-1                  1^st Aug 2011                  300,000/-

            Instalment-2                  1^st Oct 2011                   300,000/-

            Instalment-3                  1^st Dec 2011                  300,000/-

            Instalment-4                  1^st Feb 2012                  300,000/-

            Instalment-5                  1^st Apr 2012                   300,000/-

            Instalment-6                  1^st Jun 2012                   300,000/-

            Instalment-7                  1^st Aug 2012                  300,000/-

            Instalment-8                  1^st Oct 2012                   300,000/-

            Instalment-9                  1^st Dec 2012                  300,000/-

            On possession                                                  150,000/-

                                                Total                             4,200,000/-”                  

Payments made by complainant are as under:-

                        “Sr.      Date                            cheque Nos.    Amounts

                        No.

1.         07.02.2011                  408559            Rs.50,000/-

2.         06.04.2011                  004266            Rs.1,75,000/-

3.         07.04.2011                  004267            Rs.1,75,000/-

4.         17.05.2011                  408522            Rs.10,00,000/-

5.         29.12.2011                  004292            Rs.1,25,000/-

6.         30.12.2011                  004291            Rs.1,75,000/-

7.         16.04.2013                  042961            Rs.70,000/-

8.         27.04.2013                  Cash                Rs.30,000/-

9.         Booking amount          Cash                Rs.2,50,000/-

                                                Total                Rs.20,50,000/-“

 

          From comparison of these tables, it is clear that complainant did not make payment as agreed in between them.  However, O.Ps. have also failed to delivery the possession. They have not produced any evidence on the file showing that any notice was ever issued to complainant to pay the remaining amount or that they asked him to take possession of the flat. So in these circumstances when the flat is not ready for possession the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount deposited by him. So he is not entitled for the interest as per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission  mentioned above.

9.      As a sequel to above discussion the O.Ps. are directed to refund amount of Rs.20,50,000/- to the complaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which  they will be  liable to pay interest @ 09% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment.   Complainant is also entitled to Rs.21,000/- for compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

January, 21st, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.