Haryana

StateCommission

CC/166/2015

RAJNISH GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NEERAJ GUPTA

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No     :      166 of 2015

Date of Institution:      21.09.2015

Date of Decision :       02.06.2016

 

1.     Rajnish Goyal s/o Sh. S.K. Goyal, Resident of Plot No.177, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Panchkula, Haryana.

2.     Renu Goyal w/o Sh. Rajnish Goyal, Resident of Plot No.177, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s Suncity Projects Private Limited, N-49, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001, through its Director.

2.      M/s Santur Developers Private Limited, A-2/133, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, through its Director.

          IInd Address:

          M/s Santur Developers Private Limited, Parikarma, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Director.

                             Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Complainant-Rajnish Goyal in person with Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. 

Shri Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Rajnish Goyal and his wife Renu Goyal-Complainants, booked a flat on October 27^th, 2010 with M/s Suncity Projects Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1 (for short, ‘the Builder’) in its project namely “Parikarma”, Sector-20, Panchkula. An Apartment Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-12) was executed between the parties on December 1^st, 2010 and Flat No.301, admeasuring 1850 Square Feet, 3^rd Floor, Tower No.9-B was allotted to the complainants. The basic sale price of the flat was at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per square feet.  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.

2.      The complainants paid Rs.11,10,000/- to the builder as Booking Amount, that is, 15% of the basic price, through cheque dated 10^th October, 2010 vide receipt (Exhibit C-1). The remaining price of the flat was to be paid as per Schedule of Payments. The complainants paid Rs.74,27,500/- by May, 2013 but the builder failed to offer possession within the stipulated period because construction work was not completed. The complainants requested the builder to refund the amount deposited but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint seeking direction to the builder to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest at the rate 24% per annum, Rs.5.00 lacs compensation for harassments and Rs.50,000/- litigation expenses.

3.      The builder, in its reply, pleaded that as per Clause 25 of the agreement (Exhibit C-12) 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 Meajure Conditions. Thus, denying the averments made by the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      The complainant-Rajnish Goyal has appeared as CW1 and produced the following documents:-

(1)     Receipts                                          Exhibit C-1 to C-11

(2)     Apartment Buyers Agreement       Exhibit C-12

(3)     Statement of Loan Account           Exhibit C-13

5.      The builder in its evidence examined Ashwani Sharma-Authorised signatory as OPW1.   

6.      The question for consideration is as to whether the builder defaulted in delivering the possession of the flat to the complainant or not?

7.      Indisputably, the complainants had booked flat with the builder on October 27^th, 2010 by paying Rs.11,10,000/-  vide receipt Exhibit C-1. The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.74,00,000/-. Flat No.301, admeasuring 1850 Square Feet, 3^rd Floor, Tower No.9-B was allotted to the complainants vide letter dated February 25^th, 2013. The remaining sale price of the flat was to be paid in instalments as per Schedule of Payments and the possession was to be offered to the complainants on payment of 95% of the sale price within three years. The complainants paid the entire price of the flat as per the schedule, by May, 2013 but the builder failed to offer possession.

8.      In his statement as CW-1, the complainant reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. There is no evidence on behalf of the builder to show any reasonable ground not to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated period of three years. Even the authorised representative of the builder while appearing as OPW1 has admitted that the possession has not been delivered to the complainants till date, though a period of about 5½ years has expired from the date of booking of the flat. The          evidence led by the complainants remained un-rebutted. The complainants had paid the money in the hope of getting the flat for living but they have been deprived thereof.

9.      In view of the above, it is proved to the hilt that the builder was deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the flat to the complainants within the stipulated period. So, the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainants, alongwith interest and compensation.

10.              Hence, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties (builder) are directed to refund the amount deposited, to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid to the complainants within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till realization and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder 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.              

 

Announced 02.06.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL