Haryana

StateCommission

CC/211/2017

HANNAH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRS REAL ESTATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JAIENDER CHANDEL

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No.211 of 2017

Date of Institution:12.04.2017       Date of Decision: 15.03.2019

 

1.      Mrs. Hannah Sharma w/o Sh. Mr.anil Kumar Sharma

2.      Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Mr. Sita Ram Sharma

Both R/o  A-2 Pocket-9 HIG Multistory DDA Flats, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi-110025

     …..Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1.      SRS Real Estate Limited through its Managing Director SRS Tower, 730-732, 7^th Floor near Metro Station Mewla Maharajpur Delhi Mathura road, Faridabad, Haryana 121003.

          Also at:

          202, 27 New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001.

        …..Opposite party

 

CORAM:   Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.
                     Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.A.S.Khara, Advocate for the complainants.

Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite party.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

 

          Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘the Act’), averring that they purchased flat  in the project namely SRS Pearl at Sector-87, Greater Faridabad 121007, Haryana of the opposite party.  On 19.07. 2009, they submitted duly filled application form for allotment of a residential independent floor to the OP  and paid the booking amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  After some days, the O.P. unilaterally shifted the complainants to the OP’s another project i.e. SRS Pearl, Sector-88, Faridabad and O.P confirmed to the complainants allotment of the flat i.e. floor No.12/C on the second floor in Pocket P9 of SRS Floors at Sector-88, Faridabad, Haryana.  Floor Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 11.06.2011. As per the agreement, O.P. was supposed to hand over the possession of the flat within 30 months from the date of execution of agreement. The complainants had paid Rs.24,16,278/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.24,36,748/-.  The complainant has booked the flat in the year 2009 and even after expiry of more than 8 years, the OP has repeatedly failed to deliver the possession of the flat. As per agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given within 30 months alongwith grace period  of 180 days, but till date O.Ps. did not deliver the possession of the said flat.   As per the agreement, the O.Ps. were required to handover the possession of the plot by June 2014, but, they failed to honour its commitment and has failed to adhered to the terms of the agreement. However, the builder not deliver the possession of the flat, the complainant filed complaint seeking execute the sale deed  or to refund of the amount deposited by them, that is, Rs.24,16,278/-  alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment besides Rs.100000/- as litigation expenses.

2.      In reply, allotment of flat and execution of agreement etc. are admitted by Ops, but, they have denied their liability to pay compensation as prayed for.  The complainants has not paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and  due to non-payment of installments, their allotment was finally cancelled vide letter dated 08.02.2016. The allotted floor in question has already been allotted to the third party after its cancellation and possession of the same was not delivered to them.  Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, abuse the process of law etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainants, the complainants in their evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA  that of Mr. Anil Kuhmar Sharma vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-28 and closed his evidence.

4.      The arguments have been advanced by A.S.Khara, learned counsel for the complainants as well as Mr. Sikander Bakshi, the learned counsel for the opposite party.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants, the basic and foremost question which requires adjudication by this court as to whether the complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount which they have has already deposited alongwith the interest? 

6.                Indisputably, the complainant had purchased a flat with the builder.  It is not disputed that buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on  11.06.2011. It is also not disputed that the O.ps. unilaterally changed the flat in other project. Allotment of floor No.12/C was issued in Pocket P9 of SRS Floors at Sector-88. The complainants paid Rs. 24,16,278/-   to it as per the schedule.   As per agreement, the possession was to be given to him within 30 months and after grace period of 180 days, but, builder failed to do so and it was certainly a case of deficiency in service.  Anil Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Mr.Sita Ram Sharma -CW1 reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.  Complainant had paid the money in the hope of getting floor of which they have been deprived of.  The allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 08.02.2016 by the O.P. illegally and in a haste manner, the same was allotted to the third party.  As per the clause of delivery of the possession, the possession was to be delivered within period of 30 months complete in all respects and even grace period of three months was also available to the developers-O.Ps.   To the utter surprise of this court and is very pity that inspite of the fact that period of more than three years and grace period of six months had expired, the possession of the dwelling unit has not been delivered by O.Ps. Since the complainant has booked the flat in the year 2009 and even after expiry of more than 9 years, the OP has repeatedly failed to deliver the possession of the floor. From the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant, it is proved to the hilt that the builder was deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the floor in question to the complainants within the stipulated period.

7.                In view of above, the complaint is allowed. O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.24,16,278/-  to the complainants, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and mental agony, Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the O.Ps. within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the defaulting period till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the opposite party fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.             

March 15th, 2019       Mrs.Manjula                           Ram Singh Chaudhary                                              Member                                    Judicial Member                                                         Addl.Bench                             Addl.Bench                       

S.K.