Haryana

StateCommission

A/826/2016

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANTOSH DAHIYA - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      826 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.09.2016

Date of Decision :       30.09.2016

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited, A Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Parsvnath Tower, near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. R.C. Gupta, General  Manager).

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Santosh Dahiya w/o Sh. Bijender Dahiya, R/o 1285, Sector-13, Kurukshetra.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Parsvnath Developers Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated June 2^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Santosh Dahiya-complainant/respondent, was allowed.

2.                One Naveen Kumar booked a plot measuring 400 square yards, with the opposite party-appellant on September 8^th, 2004 by paying Rs.2,25,000/-, vide application Annexure A-3. The complainant-respondent purchased the booking of said Naveen Kumar on 25^th February, 2006. The opposite party transferred the booking from the name of Naveen Kumar to complainant. On the demand of opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.5,15,000/-. Total cost of the plot was Rs.14,80,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.7,40,000/-, that is, 50% of the total cost of the plot to opposite party.

3.                In terms of booking application, in the event of opposite party failing to allot plot within nine months, the opposite party was liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum for the period delayed beyond nine months on the amount paid by the complainant. The opposite party failing to allot plot to the complainant and not paying interest for the delayed period, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.                The opposite party contested complaint by filing written version and admitted the booking of plot in the forthcoming project by Naveen Kumar on advance payment of Rs.2,25,000/-. The opposite party also admitted payment of Rs.5,15,000/- by the complainant.  It was stated that since the complainant purchased the plot from the original applicant-Naveen Kumar, therefore, he was not a consumer and therefore no deficiency in service was committed.

5.                After hearing the learned  counsel for the parties and going through the record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the opposite party as under:-

“….The respondents, are thus, directed to allot the plot of 400 Sq. yards in Parsvnath City, Sonipt and to hand over the actual physical possession of the same to the complainant.

……We hereby direct the respondents to pay interest to the complainant on amount of Rs.7,40,000/- at the rate of 10% per annum w.e.f. 25.11.2006 till realization. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”    

6.                The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party was that since the complainant was purchaser of plot from original applicant, therefore, he was not a consumer and that the compensation was not payable.

7.                The contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is not tenable. Indisputably, the complainant has stepped into the shoes of original applicant. So, he is a consumer of the opposite party. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking application.

8.                Clause (C) of the booking application provided for booking of plot reads as under:-

“(C)  That in the event the residential plot is allotted after nine months, simple interest @ 10% per annum shall be paid to me/us for the period delayed beyond nine months on the amount paid by me/us as advance till such time I/we am/are allotted a residential plot or adjusted against the price of the plot to be allotted to me/us.”

9.                Payment of Rs.7,40,000/- is not disputed.  The District Forum has allowed interest after nine months from the purchase of booking by the complainant, though as per the booking application, the period of nine months was to start from the date of booking, that is, 8^th September, 2004.  Since, the complainant had purchased the booking on 25^th February, 2006, therefore, the District Forum rightly allowed interest by calculating nine months period from the said date. In view of this, the relief granted to the complainant appears to be reasonable. No case for interference is made out.

10.              Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

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

 

Announced: 30.09.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL