Haryana

StateCommission

A/29/2016

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARITA GARG - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

22 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      29 of 2016

Date of Institution:    11.01.2016

Date of Decision :     22.03.2016

 

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 No.1

Versus

1.      Sarita Garg w/o Sh. Shri Sanjeev Garg

2.      Sanjeev Garg s/o Sh. Krishan Lal Garg

          Both Residents of House No.1030/1, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

Respondents/Complainants

3.      Samar Associates Private Limited, Registered Office at 254, NAC, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

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

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate proxy on behalf of Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ramesh Chander Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated October 20^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2015.  

2.      Sarita Garg and Sanjeev Garg-Complainants/respondents No.1 and 2, booked flat No.T7-G01 with Parsvnath Developers Limited- opposite party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Builder’), in their project ‘Parsvnath Royale’ on October 13^th, 2010, vide application Annexure R1/2. The basic price of the flat was Rs.56,55,000/-. The complainants paid Rs.14,50,154.06. The Builder did not start construction though a period of four years had passed. The complainants sought refund of the amount paid by them but the Builder refused. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

3.      The Builder in its reply pleaded that the delay in construction was due to recession in the price of immovable properties.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the Builder as under:-

“(i)     To make the payment of Rs.14,50,154.06 deposited by the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of the amount.

(ii)      To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

(iii)     To make the payment of Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with by the Ops within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy, thereafter, the Ops shall pay the amount at serial No.1 alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of depositing of the amount by the complainants till realization besides complying with the directions at serial No.2 and 3 above.”

5.      Indisputably, the flat was booked on October 13^th, 2010.  There is nothing on record to show that an attempt was ever made by the Builder to offer possession to the complainants. The Builder even failed to start the construction after passing of four years. The Builder has not been able to show any justifiable reason not to start construction. The Builder is trying to feather its own nest, that is, to make profit, for itself, at the cost of others. It will be travesty if the complainants are made to suffer for the deliberate, inaction and negligence of the Builder.  Thus the District Forum was justified in directing the Builder to refund the amount to the complainants alongwith interest and compensation.  No case for interference is made out.

6.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

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

 

 

 

Announced: 22.03.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Nawab Singh President

CL