Haryana

StateCommission

A/850/2016

LAXMAN CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Y.D.KAUSHIK

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      850 of 2016

Date of Institution:      19.09.2016

Date of Decision :       03.01.2017

 

Laxman Chaudhary s/o late Shri Babe Jee Chaudhary, Resident of House No.710, Sector 29, Behind HUDA Market, Faridabad at present Flat No.B-1/101, Summer Palms, Sector 86, Baselwa, Faridabad-121002.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

M/s RPS Infra Structure Limited, 1117-1120, 11^th Floor, Tower-B, DLF Tower, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Yash Dev Kaushik, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vansh Malhotra, Advocate and Ms.Divyastuti Parsoon, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated August 4^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.538 of 2012.

2.                Laxman Chaudhary-complainant (appellant herein) booked a flat bearing No.SY-07-0307 with M/s RPS Infrastructure Limited-Opposite Party/respondent, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’), in its Group Housing Project “RPS-SHYTHM” Sector-88, Faridabad, on 18^th July, 2008 by paying Rs.1.00 lac vide receipt Annexure-1. The super area of the flat was 1665 square feet and the Basic Sale Price was Rs.31,46,850/- besides Preferential Location Charges (PLC), External Development Charges (EDC) and Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) etcetera. Apartment Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit R-11) was executed between the parties on March 29^th, 2010. The price of the flat was to be paid as per Construction Linked Plan. The possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainant within 36 months from the execution of the agreement or from the date of getting various sanctions from the concerned authorities for starting the construction of the project, whichever is later. The complainants paid Rs.12,42,922/- but the builder did not hand over possession of the plot. The complainants requested for refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest but the builder did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The builder-Opposite Party by filing written version contested the complaint raising various pleas including the maintainability of the complaint etc. It was stated that the project could not be completed due to some litigation between the land owners and the builder and therefore the builder was not liable to pay any interest/compensation to the complainant. Denying the averments of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the builder to refund Rs.12,42,922/-, that is, the principal amount to the complainant. However, no compensation/interest was awarded.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that since the builder-opposite party remained deficient in handing over the possession within the stipulated period and used the huge money of the complainant for its business; so the complainant was entitled to interest and compensation.

6.                The contention raised is tenable.  Non-construction of the flat as per agreement is itself a deficiency in service and therefore the allottee is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by them alongwith interest. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Arvinder Singh versus Unitch Hi-Tech Developers Limited & Anr. IV(2016) CPJ 424 (NC).

7.                The judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Arvinder Singh’s case (Supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. Indisputably, the flat was booked on 18^th July, 2008 and the complainant paid the amount of Rs.12,42,922/- to the builder on different dates up to 8^th May, 2010. However, the builder failed to offer possession to the complainant within the stipulated period of 36 months as per agreement. In view of this, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation.

8.                In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The respondent-builder is directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,42,922/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of respective deposits till its realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment/mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.  The impugned order is modified accordingly in the above terms.

 

Announced 03.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL