Delhi

Central Delhi

cc/626/2013

gurpawan singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHOURYS TOWER - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-626/13

In the matter of:

1. Sh.Gurpawan Singh
2. Ms. Jagjeet Kaur

A-294, Shivalik,

New Delhi-17                        

Complainants

 

Vs

 

M/s Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Through Its Directors

Regd, Office at: 78B, Sector-D2,

Janta Flats, Kondali Gharoli,

Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi-110096

                                                                                                             Opposite Party

 

                                                                                        DATE OF ADMISSION-24/07/2013

                                                                                        DATE OF ORDER         -30/10/2015

 

ORDER

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant booked a flat in the respondent project Shourya Greens in Jalandhar, Punjab. After making the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- in the month of August, he further Paid Rs.2,69,000/- in the month of Octorber 2006 flat No.402 was alloted on 07/09/2006 to the complainant. The officials of the respondent assured to give possession of the flat by December 2008. According to the Brochure 33 towers with amenities like State of the Art Club facility etc were to be developed. An agreement was executed on 08/12/2006 but no date of possession was mentioned and no satisfactory reply was given in this regard. The loan of Rs. 22,76,000/- with a tripartite agreement was granted by ICICI Bank. Payment was to be made by the bank to the respondent as per demand and progress of the project. The complainant shifted from Bangalore to Delhi in February 2007 but his address was not updated by the respondent. In the month of July 2011, when complainant visited Jalandhar site, they came to know about change of address and address was provided to the respondent again and as an abundant precaution an E-mail was also sent. Despite repeated request the possession was not assured nor was any specific date given, instead respondent demanded penal charges from the complainant. The details of the payment made by the bank were not provided in writing nor were any details submitted regarding imposition of the penal charges. The respondent has not hand over the possession despite numerous requests and kept on asking the penal charges. At the spot they have increased the number of towers and the State of the Art Club Facility has also not provided. in these circumstances the complainant prayed interest @ 24% on the total amount paid from 01/08/2006 till handing over the possession of the flat to the complainant. He has also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Respondent in their reply raised the issue of territorial Jurisdiction as well as pecuniary jurisdiction as the total cost of the flat is more than Rs.20, lakhs. It is also alleged that the complainant is a defaulter as such not entitled for any interest. Plea of limitation has also been raised as the flat was booked in 2006. No other plea has been raised.

            Both the parties has filed on record their respective evidence.

            Heard and perused the record.

The respondent has raised the plea of territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the project in question is located in Jalandhar and no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi. For pecuniary jurisdiction, as the cost of the flat is more than Rs, 20 lakhs. Counsel for the complainant argued that the registered office of the respondent is located in Mayur Vihar Delhi. This is not denied by the respondent that the complainant has not communicated with this address when he shifted from Bangalore to Delhi. There is no single communication from the side of the respondent regarding the development at the site or asking the complainant to make any balance payment if any due. The first letter which has been issued by the respondent after the address was communicated at their Jalandhar office by the complainant which is Annexure-1 dated 29/11/2012 prior to this the respondent have not placed on record any documents which could prove that they have offered/issue any communication to the complainant regarding balance amount, if any due. This letter was addressed to the complainant at his address A-294 Shivalik, New Delhi. This shows that the cause of action relating to the present complaint has arisen to the complainant when he was served at his Delhi address. Since the cause of action has arisen by the wrongful demand at Delhi, the Forum at Delhi will have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. In so far as, the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned it is to be decided on the basis of the relief claimed. The complainant is not claiming the possession.  His main prayer is for award of 24% interest on the total amount paid by him to the respondent from 01/08/2006 till possession of the flat. The complainant has mentioned in this complaint and has also filed on record the copy of the agreement where in respondent purposely left in Para-9 of the agreement the date of the possession blank. The complainant was asking repeatedly through communication as well as through E-mail regarding the date of the possession which the respondent has deliberately avoided. This has not been controverted in the written statement nor in the affidavit filed by the respondent that the date of the delivery of the possession was not December 2008. They have not yet placed on record that they have ever communicated to him the actual date of the delivery of the possession. In the letter dated September 2012 they have not mentioned that they have sent the offer of possession on 11/09/2012 but they have not filed on record any such letter offering any specific date of possession to the complainant. This complaint has been filed on 23/07/2013 when the cause of action was continuing as there was no any specific date of delivery of the possession. In these circumstances the plea of limitation has no merit and it could not be said that the complaint has been filed after the period of limitation. Since the relief of possession is not being prayed, the total value of the flat cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. The complaint filed is well within pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.

            This is clear from the statement of account filed on record that the complainant has already deposited Rs.25,16,507/-with the respondent and they are asking from the complainant further sum of Rs.3,58,607/-. The complainant has filed on record the demand letter Annexure-H showing the imposition of 24% penal interest which amounts of Rs.5,3120/-.86. This fact is not denied by the respondent that they have not entered into tripartite agreement with the complainant and ICICI Bank and the Bank has not made them timely payment. The complainant asking the respondent to provide the details of the amount received from the bank and the cause of imposing the penal interest, if the amount has been deposited by the bank in time. There is no single denial in the entire written statement nor respondent have filed any statement of account showing any delay on the part of the bank to deposit the amount when it was incumbent upon the respondent to justify imposition of 24% penal interest. They have failed to give any reason for such imposition. The complainant was within his right to ask for the imposition to such penal interest when he was not under any obligation to pay the amount to the respondent and bank has made the timely payment. Respondent has not fulfilled his obligation by handover the possession by December 2008. The demand of the complainant for interest towards the amount which he has deposited with the respondent cannot be said to be unjustified. The bank who has advance him loan and have made the timely payment to the respondent is charging the interest from the complainant. He is being doubly taxed text, he is paying the interest to the bank and the respondent is not delivering him the possession of the property and he is deprived of the use of property for which he has paid the amount. In these circumstances, the demand of interest for delayed delivery of the possession cannot be said to unjustified. The respondent has been deficient in his service and at the same time they are enjoying at the cost of the complainant money. It has been argued that the respondent in each of his communication and agreement have demanded 24% penal interest likewise when the respondent have not fulfill his obligation, the complainant is also entitled for 24% interest for the default at the end of the respondent. We are in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the complainant. In various pronouncing of the NCDRC & Hon’ble Apex Court, the maximum interest allowed is 18%. We allow this complaint. We award 18% interest to the complainant on the entire deposited amount of Rs.25,16,507/- from the date it was deposited with the respondent till the possession is delivered to the complainant. We further award compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony which shall also include the cost of litigation. If this amount is not paid within 45 days the complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest over this amount of compensation and cost.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                                 N.A.ZAIDI

        MEMBER                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT