Haryana

StateCommission

A/980/2015

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJAY KAKKAR - Opp.Party(s)

PRIANKA DALAL

18 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      980 of 2015

Date of Institution:      13.11.2015

Date of Decision :       18.05.2016

 

1.     M/s Raheja Developers Limited having its office at W4D, 204/05, Keshav Kunj, Carriapa Marg, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 through its Authorised Signatory Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Bharat Singh.

2.     The Managing Director, M/s Raheja Developers Limited having its office at E-6, Ground Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110062.

 

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

1.      Sanjay Kakkar s/o Sh. S.L. Kakkar, Resident of 90, Ram Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

2.      Kanta Kakkar d/o Sh. G.D. Dudeja, Resident of 90, Ram Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri Harsh Bunger, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of opposite parties is directed against the order dated September 28^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2009.

2.      Sanjay Kakkar and Mrs. Kanta Kakkar-complainants/respondents, vide application Exhibit R-1, applied for a flat with M/s Raheja Developers Private Limited-Opposite Parties/appellants, in their upcoming project known as ‘Navodaya’ Sector-92 & 95, Gurgaon. The total price of the flat was Rs.43,46,160/-. The respondents/complainants deposited Rs.4,34,616/-, being 10% as booking amount. ‘Flat Buyer Agreement’ (Exhibit C-1), was executed on 11.08.2008. Later the respondents paid Rs.6,51,924/- and Rs.4,18,150/-. In this way, the respondents paid total amount of Rs.15,04,690/-. The respondents received letter dated 14.03.2009 (Exhibit C-13) from the appellants/opposite parties that the location of the project had been changed, despite the fact that prior to that the appellants had been sending photographs of the construction activities, which was apparently false. The appellants changing the location of the project, the respondents sought refund of the amount alongwith interest. The refund not being made, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The opposite parties/appellants, contested the complaint by filing reply. Though not disputing the fact that the respondents had paid Rs.15,04,690/-, stated that  the building plan of the project was done on 27.03.2008 and building plan had also been approved. While justifying the change in location stated that the respondents were at fault. Thus, the appellants cancelled the allotment on 22.09.2009. 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 directing the appellants/opposite parties as under:-

“…we direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.15,04,690/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.05.2009 till realization. The complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony caused by the opposite parties to the complainants. The complainants are also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The Ops shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, under the agreement were justified and competent to change the location of the project, therefore, the respondents could not object to the same and sought refund. 

6.      Certainly, the respondents applied for flat for their residence taking into consideration the location and environment etcetera of the project. Therefore, the location of the project is certainly one of the criteria of every applicant while booking the flat.  The appellants earlier intimating regarding sanction of plan and starting construction of the project etcetera, later taking ‘U’ turn, stated that the location of the project had been changed. Certainly the earlier communication did not show the true picture of the project. Therefore, certainly the respondents were justified in seeking the refund.

7.      Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the complaint, the appellants have refunded a sum of Rs.5,71,003/- which has not been ordered to be adjusted. This appears to be justifiable.

8.      In view of the above, the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint directing the appellants to refund the amount. However, the impugned order is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs.5,71,003/- paid by opposite parties/appellants to complainants/respondents shall be adjusted against the amount worked out to be payable by the appellants to the respondents. The respondents would also not be entitled to interest as ordered by the District Forum on the said amount i.e. Rs.5,71,003/- after the date of its payment.

9.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents/complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 18.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL