Haryana

StateCommission

CC/377/2018

PREM LATA SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.K.SINGAL

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

  Date of Institution:19.06.2018

                Date of final hearing:26.08.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement: 15.11.2022

 

Consumer Complaint No. 377 of 2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF

                                               

Prem Lata Singhal W/o Sh.Pawan  Kumar Singhal R/o H.NO.1045, Sector-11, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Complainant

VERSUS

SRS Real Estate Limited having its office at SRS Tower, 3^rd Floor, Near Metro Station, Mewla Maharajpur, Delhi-Mathura Road, Faridabad 121003 (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

 

Present:-    Mr.Ammish Goel proxy counsel for Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite parties already ex parte.

 

O R D E R

PER: S.P.SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

ORDER

 

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked an independent floor No.9 B Floor in Pocket No.P-6 having super built area of 1447 sq. ft at SRS Pearl Floors situated at Sector 87 Faridabad, Haryana by depositing Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque No.517559 as booking amount on 14.07.2009 vide receipt dated 18.08.2009.    The OP  issued the allotment letter dated 30.08.2010 allotting independent floor No.09/B at 1^st floor in pocket No.P-6 in the project namely SRS Pearl Floors in favour of the complainant.   The total basic sale price of the floor was Rs.24,36,748/-, but sale consideration of Rs.25,58,585/- was required to be paid by the complainant towards the said booked unit on the basis of the construction.  On 13.10.2010, the floor Buyer’s Agreement was executed between the parties at Faridabad.  As per clause 4 (4.1) of the said agreement, the possession of the booked unit/apartment was to be offered by the OP to the complainant within a period of 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement.  The possession of the floor was to be handed over by the OP to the complainant upto 13.04.2013.  The complainant paid all the installments within the stipulated time and has already deposited an amount of Rs.26,63,189/- with the OP, which was much more than the total sale consideration amount of Rs.25,58,585/- against the allotted floor.  The OP has also charged Rs.1,21,837/- from the complainant on account of preferential location charges.  The complainant requested the OP to pay the compensation on account of delay in not handing over the possession of the allotted floor/apartment with in the agreed time period. On 10.12.2015, the complainant received the demand-cum possession offer of Rs.2,16,615/- on account of interest and Rs.33,799/- on account of maintenance charges for one year from the complainant but he was shocked as by that time the possession of the booked floor in question had not taken over  or accepted by the complainant still he was asked to pay for maintenance charges.  Finally, he wrote a  letter to the OP dated 11.12.2015 demanding penalty of Rs.Two lacs for late handing over the possession and secondly to refund the amount which was charged by them on account of this flat being located at a preferential place i.e. park facing as the apartment of the complainant was not situated in front of the park.  In total, the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs.33,80,752/- with the OP. The complainant requested the OP to pay compensation for late handing over the possession  and refund PLC charges, but, to no avail.  The complainant received letter dated 28.02.2018 intimating him to execute a conveyance deed after clearing dues. The complainant had already made the excess payment to the OP. The complainants requested the OPs to pay interest calculated @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount of Rs.33,80,752/- from the date of its deposit till the date i.e. 11.01.2016 when the physical possession was handed over to the complainant after deducting an amount of Rs.1,21,837/ which was charged by the OP on account of PLC.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

2.      OPs were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 20.08.2019.

3.      When the complaint was posted for recording ex parte evidence of the complainant, complainant-Smt. Pre Lata Singhal W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Singhal in her evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.CA vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-34 and closed her evidence. The evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Ammish Goel proxy counsel for Mr. D.K.Singhal, learned counsel for the complainant.  With his kind assistance entire record including documentary as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                While unfolding his arguments, it was argued by Sh.Ammish Goel, the learned counsel for the complainant that as far as the factum of execution of the buyers agreement  is concerned  the same is not in dispute.  It is also not in dispute that the basic price of the floor was Rs.24,36,748/-  against which a total sum of Rs.33,80,752/- had already been paid by the complainant to the  O.P.  As per the buyers agreement  and the terms and conditions incorporated therein including date of delivery of the possession of the floor, the possession complete in all respect was to be delivered to the complainant by the O.Ps.  within 30 months subject to some reservations.  The period within which, the possession of the floor was to be delivered had already expired despite complainant depositing the amount of Rs.33,80,752/-.   The complainant booked the flat on 14.07.2009, buyer agreement was executed on 13.10.2010, the possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainant on or before 30 months as per the agreement, but, possession of the flat was given to the complainant on 11.01.2016. Thus the possession of the flat was given to the complainant after five years. In these circumstances the complainant had no other option, but, to seek the interest on the deposited amount alongwith PLC charges and other charges, which she had already paid. 

6.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that upon floating a project by the builders, floor was purchased by the complainant for a cost of Rs.25,58,585/- against which an amount of Rs.33,80,752/-  had been paid.  Buyer agreement  is also not disputed.  As per buyer agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within period of 30 months in all respects complete  subject to some reservation, but, the possession of the floor given to the complainant after five years.   As such, there is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the buyers agreement on behalf of the O.Ps.   It is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and would invest the funds in other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money is not completed.  Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project is delayed as in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service of opposite parties  and thus, complainant is well within her legal rights to get the interest on the deposited amount of Rs.33,80,752/-  (Thirty Three lacs Eight thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two Only).  Even otherwise also there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still deprived of not being put into possession of the same and under these constrained circumstances, he had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking interest on the deposited amount.  In such like cases  the Commission had to deal with the developers/O.Ps. with severe hands who are misusing the funds of the individuals. 

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.Ps. are directed to pay the interest @ 6% on the deposited amount of Rs.33,80,752/- from the date of its deposit till the date i.e. 11.01.2016 when the physical possession was handed over to the complainant.  In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  30 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 9% per annum, for the defaulting period.   The complainant is also entitled of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) for compensation of mental and physical agony.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled of Rs.25,000/-  (Twenty Five Thousand Only) as litigation charges.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

8.                Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

9.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.              File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                                   (S.P.Sood)

                                                                   Judicial member

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.Kaushik)

                                                                    Member

 

Pronounced On:  15.11.2022                                                                  

 

S.K.