Haryana

StateCommission

A/217/2017

DLF HOME PANCHKULA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUKDEV SINGH DHILLON - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV G.S.CHAUHAN

27 Mar 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.217 of 2017

Date of the Institution:01.03.2017

Date of Decision: 27.03.2019

 

1.      DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, through its MD, Chandigarh through technology Park, Plot No.2, Tower-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh (U.T.).

2.      The Chief Executive Officer, DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Chandigarh Technology Park, Plot No.2, Tower-D, Ground Floor, Chandigarh-U.T.

3.      DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. ltd., through its site incharge/ officer, Village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Sukdev Singh Dhillon, aged about 70 years, s/o Sh. Sh.Ranjit Singh, R/o H.No.3460, Sai Enclave, Sector-49 D, Chandigarh.

2.      Vinod Kumar, aged about 40 years, s/o Sh. Sh.Hari Chand, r/o Village Manakpur Thakur Dass, Tehsil Kalka, Distt.Panchkula.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member

                   Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav G.S.Chauhan, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr.Navin Ladhwal, Advocate for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

 

Delay in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      It was alleged by complainants that they booked a plot bearing No. DVPG2/11 measuring about 442 sq. yards in DLF Valley, Panchkula after paying an amount of Rs.12,00,000 to the Opposite parties through cheque on 31.12.2011, which was encashed by the O.Ps on 14.01.2012.  O.Ps. further demanded Rs.19,07,778/-, Rs.13,445/-  even without offer of any possession and even without any development of the area. He requested the Ops to refund the deposited amount, but, O.Ps replied that all the construction activities have been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After six months, the O.Ps. demanded an amount of Rs.39,93,075/- and Rs.60,64,927/-, which was wrong and illegal. He visited the office of O.Ps. to refund the deposited amount, but, to no avail.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties.  It was alleged that O.Ps. already completed construction of 258 independent floors on 86 plots and another 1517 built up units were nearing completion.  Out of 1775 built up units, occupation certification has been received for 258 units.  Possession was given within a period of two years, there was a  stay on construction in furtherance of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19.04.2012 in SLP No.21786-88/2010. The complainant paid Rs.12,00,000/- through cheques.  The complainants have failed to make the payment as per schedule, The O.Ps. left with no other choice than to forfeit the earnest money as per clause 19 of the application for allotment.   Thus there was no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.                After hearing both the parties by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula  (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 02.08.2016 and directed as under:-

“i.       To refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the respective date of deposits till its paid.

ii.       To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainants.

iii.      To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.”

5.       Feeling aggrieved therefreom, O.Ps.-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Gaurav G.S.Chauhan,  the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh. Navin Ladhwal the learned counsel for the respondents.  With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties before the learned District Forum had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Initially, the complainants have deposited the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- for booking one plot measuring about 442 sq. yards in DLF Valley, Panchkula.  The total cost of the plot was more than Rs.2,00,00,00/- crores and the amount was to be paid in installments as per the repayment schedule.  However, inspite of making repeated requests and writing letters, the amount of the installment were not deposited. 

8.      It is the case set up on behalf of the complainants that after few months of booking of the plot, a letter was also written to the O.Ps. that his booking may be cancelled and allotment of the plot may be cancelled.

9.      As far as the payment of the booking amount is concerned, it is not in dispute.  Now the question arises as per the terms and conditions enshrined in the allotment letter or the subsequent documents of the O.Ps., there is forfeiture clause that in case of the default some percentage of the amount deposited by the complainants or the investor would be forfeited. Even in case of the delayed payment, the interest can also be charged.  It is quite surprising that presuming for the sake of arguments, a request was made on behalf of the investor to cancel his booking and he was very well aware of the total sale consideration of the plot in question, which was more than two crores.  When no sufficient sources were available with the complainant party then it appears that the plot was booking for earning the profit and there is no explanation given on bebhalf of the complainant as to why the remaining amount has not been paid, inspite of writing several letters the forfeiture clause was within the knowledge of the investor or the complainant including the delayed payment of the interest if any on the amount of the installments.  It has also been brought into the notice of this Commission by the learned counsel for the Mr.Parveen Jain, that the entire area has been developed and more than 300 families have already raised the construction of the house and are living peacefully.  Keeping in view the forfeiture clause, the non-payment of the installments after booking of the plot and subsequent suspicious circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get any refund.  The impugned order dated 02.08.2016 is set aside. The appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

March  27th, 2019      Mrs. Manjula                                      Ram Singh Chaudhary                                            Member                                              Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                       Addl.Bench               

S.K.