Delhi

StateCommission

CC/10/327

B. GANESHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMV AGENCIES PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Oct 2014

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:  17.10.2014

C.No. 327/10.

 

B. Ganeshan, Son of Late Shri R. Balasubramanian,

R/o 9-B, block E-3, Shatabdi Vihar, Sector-52

NOIDA-201307.

 

……Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

S.M.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Jaipuria Group,

Registered Officer, 1862, Mahalaxmi Market,

Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110 006 through its Chairman

…Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member, N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the     judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

           

Cases Referred

1. Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, New Delhi, VI (1999) SLT 545=11 (1999)CPJ 4 (SC)=(1999) 6 SCC 406
2. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7(SC)=(1994) 1 SCC 243

- 2 –

 

 

N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

 

1. Complainant disclosed in his complaint that he booked a flat bearing No.R-506 with a super area of 1288 Sq. Ft. in the project called ‘Jaipuria’s Sunrise Green’ being developed by the Opposite Party i.e. S.M.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd., a Jaipuria Group Company.  Price of the flat was Rs.24,10,878/-.  OP issued an allotment letter dated 02.11.2006.  Subsequently, an agreement dated 07.11.2006 was entered into.  Complainant made the payment of Rs.21,66,179/- in one shot.  Amount of Rs.1,20,544/- i.e. 5% of the total cost was to be paid at the time of possession of the flat.  As per conditions of allotment, possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainant on 31.10.2008. In the event of delay in handing over possession, the OP was liable to pay a compensation @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month.  In other words, an amount of Rs.6440/- was payable by the OP to the complainant per month for the delayed period of handing over of possession.  Grievance of the complainant is that he has not been handed over the possession of the flat in question.  Complaint was filed on 01.11.2010.  Next contention of the complainant is that he had taken a loan of Rs.13,25,000/- from AXIS Bank, Chandigarh for making payment of the sale price of the flat to the OP.  He had been paying EMIs of Rs.15,490/- towards refund of the loan to the AXIS Bank, Chandigarh.
2. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.21,66,179/- deposited by him with the OP alongwith interest @24% per annum.  He has also prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs for harassment and mental agony faced by him.

- 3 -

3. Opposite party (in short the ‘OP’) in his written version submitted that the project in question is a massive project with 1000 flats.  Completion of such a project depends upon payment from other customers and clearance from various government agencies.  It is admitted by the OP that the complainant opted for a down payment plan and made payment as averred by him.
4. Next submission of the OP is that he would deliver the flats in question to his allottees with additional facilities and without charging any additional costs.  OP has given a list of such additional facilities in his written version.  He has stated that the delivery of the flat shall be made by him to the complainant by the end of the year 2011.  OP has expressed his willingness to pay the penalty for delayed possession as per agreement.  He has referred to his letter dated 29.01.2009 written to the complainant to pay the aforesaid penalty @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the super area and for the period w.e.f. 01.11.2008 onwards. We have heard at length the arguments addressed by the Counsels of the parties.
5. It is the admitted case of the OP that the flat in question was to be handed over to the complainant on 31.10.2008.  OP has failed to indicate any lapse on the part of the complainant in so far as the agreement is concerned.  The sole defence raised by the OP is that his was a massive project depending upon the factors like payments from the customers and clearance from the government agencies.  The plea raised by the OP is highly vague in that he failed to indicate the circumstances beyond his control and leading to his failure to deliver possession of the flat on time. OP has not pointed out as to which government agency stood in the way

- 4 -

of completion of this project.  Service of the legal notice dated 9.8.2010  sent by the complainant to OP is not denied.  As referred to above, the flat was to be handed over by the OP on 31.10.2008.  In his written version, OP stated that he would hand over the same by the end of the year 2011.  During the course of trial, the OP did not come up with the contention that the flat was ready for possession at any point of time.  OP received money from the complainant in one go in Nov. 2006 with a promise that he would hand over the possession of the flat by 31.10.2008.  Flat has not been offered to the complainant till date.  It is a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. 

6. The complainant paid all his retiral benefits and home loan to the OP.  From the year 2008 till date a lot of water has flown down the Ganges.  Prices of real estate have gone through the roof.  There has been a lot of escalation in the cost of construction.  Complainant’s dream of having his own home is shattered.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.21,66,179/- alongwith the interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its realization.  Compensation part on account of harassment and mental agony is taken care of by the rate of interest awarded.
7. _{File be sent to record room.}

                                                                    (Salma Noor)                                                                         Member

 

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)