Haryana

StateCommission

A/572/2016

RAJIV SINGH THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNCITY PROJECT PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BHAVNA JOSHI

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   572 of 2016

Date of Institution:   24.06.2016

Date of Decision :    13.07.2016

 

Rajiv Singh Thakur s/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh Thakur, Resident of House No.2101, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Suncity Projects Private Limited, through its directors.

Registered Office: Suncity Projects Private Limited, LGF-10, Vasant Square, Plot-A, Sector-B, Pocket-V, Community Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (India)

 

Branch Office: Suncity Business Tower, Second Floor, Gold Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

 

Branch Office (Local): Suncity Parikrama Group Housing Project, GH-Sector-20, Panchkula-134112, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Ms. Bhavna Joshi, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Rajiv Singh Thakur-Complainant/appellant, booked a flat/Apartment No.1302, admeasuring 1850 Square Feet, 13^th Floor, Tower No.9-B on May 24^th, 2010 with M/s Suncity Projects Private Limited-Opposite Party/respondent (for short, ‘the Builder’) in its project namely “Parikarma”, Sector-20, Panchkula. The basic sale price of the flat was at the rate of Rs.3,007/- per square feet. An Apartment Buyers Agreement (Annexure A-5) was executed between the parties on July 24^th, 2010.  

2.      The complainant paid Rs.5,56,295/- to the builder as Booking Amount, that is, 15% of the basic price, through cheque dated 9^th May, 2010 vide receipt (Annexure A-6). The remaining price of the flat was to be paid as per Schedule of Payments. The possession of the flat was to be delivered within three years from the date of execution of the agreement or approval of all Services Plans whichever is later, subject to deposit of 95% of the basic sale price and in case of delay on the part of the builder (except Force Majeure Conditions as stipulated in the agreement), the builder was required to pay a compensation @ Rs.10/- per square feet per month to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.59,75,988/- by May, 2013 but the builder failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period because construction work was not completed. Hence, the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) seeking direction to the builder to deliver possession; to pay interest and compensation for the delayed period.  

3.      The builder, in its reply, pleaded that as per condition No.25 of the agreement (Annexure A-5) the construction was to be completed within three years from the date of the agreement or approval of all Services Plans whichever was later, subject to Force Majeure Conditions. Thus, denying the averments made by the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 8^th April, 2016 allowed complaint directing the builder/opposite parties, as under:-

“(i)     To handover the physical possession to the complainant within a period of 6 months complete in all respect from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the OP should pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposit till hand over the physical possession of the flat.

(ii)      To pay compensation @ Rs.10/- per square feet per month from 24.07.2013 (the promised date of delivery of possession) onward to the complainant as per clause 25 of the Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-2).

(iii)     To make payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

(iv)    To make the payment of Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.”

 

5.      The complainant has come up in appeal on the short ground that he should have been awarded interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 24% per annum and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-.

6.      The District Forum has not only awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet per month for the period of delay in delivery of possession but also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony/harassment etcetera.  The builder was also directed to deliver possession within six months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the builder shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum per square feet on the deposited amount. This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 13.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL