Haryana

StateCommission

A/1057/2015

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOM PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1057 of 2015

Date of Institution:        10.12.2015

Date of Decision :         06.04.2016

 

The Managing Director, Omaxe Limited, Registered Office 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi through its authorised representative Shri Parveen  Kumar Gupta, M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Complex, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

1.      Som Parkash Gupta

2.      Ved Gupta

Sons of Shri Om Parkash Gupta, Residents of L-439, Model Town, Panipat.

                                      Respondents/Complainants

 

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

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Sanchit Punia, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated October 26^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.128 of 2014.

2.      Som Parkash Gupta and Ved Gupta-Complainants/respondents, booked plot No.651, Block-B, with ‘Omaxe Limited’-Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the builder’) in their project namely ‘Omaxe City’ at Sonipat, on May 23^rd, 2007. The basic cost of the plot was Rs.27,87,855/-. The complainants paid the entire price of the plot but neither the builder delivered possession nor executed the sale-deed. Hence, the complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.      The builder in its reply pleaded that a sum of Rs.10,96,140/- was due against the complainants due to which the sale-deed was not executed. The possession was to be delivered as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. However, the possession was offered to the complainants vide letter dated December 22^nd, 2012 vide letter Exhibit R-4, subject to deposit of the balance amount.  

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint and directed the builder to deliver possession of the plot to the complainants; pay interest at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.27,87,855 with effect from 28.12.2013 till the delivery of physical possession; to pay Rs.3,000/- compensation and Rs.2,000/- litigation expenses.

5.      Indisputably, the plot was booked by the complainants on May 23^rd, 2007 and the amount of Rs.27,87,855/- was paid to the builder.  Plea was raised by the builder that offer of possession was given on December 22^nd, 2012 vide letter Exhibit R-4.

5.      A perusal of Exhibit R-4 shows that the builder only offered the possession subject to the compliance of certain formalities including the payment of certain amounts due. The letter, however, finds mention that physical possession will be handed over after execution and registration of the sale-deed in favour of the complainants.

6.      It is own case of the builder that the complaints have paid the entire price of the plot by April 1^st, 2013 (Though as per the complainants the date of last payment was 28.02.2013 vide Exhibit R-14).

7.      Be that as it may, the fact remains that even thereafter despite notice Exhibit R-17 being issued, the builder has not offered physical possession. When the builder admits that the entire payment was received and no amount was due and even thereafter the physical possession not being offered, certainly, the builder committed deficiency in service. So, the District Forum rightly granted interest to the complainant on the deposited amount. The order passed by the District Forum does not require interference.

8.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.2500/- 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: 06.04.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL