Haryana

StateCommission

A/293/2015

RAM CHANDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR BUILDERS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI KUMAR ANTIL

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      293 of 2015

Date of Institution:    26.03.2015

Date of Decision :     21.04.2016

 

Ram Chander son of Ram Kishan, resident of Arya Nagar, Sonepat.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

Senior Builders Limited, B-109, Defence Colony, New Delhi.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                   

Present:              Shri Gautam Kaile, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated February 23^rd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.378 of 2013.  

2.      Vide Detailed Track Events for RH200363080IN whereby notice was issued to respondent, article was delivered to it on 28.01.2016.  Despite service, respondent did not appear.

3.      Ram Chander-complainant booked a plot with Senior Builders Limited- opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Builder’) on April 07^th, 2005. The complainant paid Rs.3,50,000/-. The Builder did not handover the possession of the plot to the complainant. The complainant sought refund of the amount paid by him but the Builder did not pay any heed. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.      The Builder was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.

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

“In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- deposited by the complainant is ordered to be refunded after deducting 15% amount.  Accordingly, keeping in view the above cited law of the Hon’ble National Commission, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- after deducting 15% amount from the said amount and the balance amount is directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization.”

 

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the complainant is entitled to get the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- without any deduction and that too from the date of its deposit. 

7.      Submission being convincing, the flat was booked on April 07^th, 2005.  No attempt was ever made by the Builder to offer possession to the complainant. The District Forum relying upon Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited Versus Indu Dhir 2014(1), CPJ, 143, NC allowed the complaint directing the Builder to refund the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- after deducting 15% amount from the said amount and the balance amount was directed to be paid to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its actual realization.  The case cited by the District Forum is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case, the deduction was made due to the fault of allottee, who failed to pay the installments in time after allotment whereas in the case in hand, no such allotment or offer of possession was given to the complainant and the complainant was paying the installments regularly.  Thus, the Builder is directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.3,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization to the complainant. 

8.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 21.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK