STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 18.02.2022
Date of final hearing: 10.10.2024
Date of pronouncement: 21.11.2024
First Appeal No.57 of 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
M/s JOP International Ltd., Regd. Office: 45/77 Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110026, through its Director/authorized signatory-Bharat Agarwal. …..Appellant
Versus
Sunita Devi W/o Sh. Karan Singh, R/o H. No. 431, Village Jakhoda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
…..Respondent
Branch Manager, JOP International Ltd., JOP Palms, Sector-28, near IMT Bye pass, Rohtak.
…..Performa Respondent
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Amit Sheoran, counsel for respondent No.1.
(Name of respondent No. 2 already deleted from array of respondents).
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.57 of 2022 has been invited to legality of order dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Rohtak (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.143 of 2018 vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
2. Complainant booked 3BHK flat having area of 1450 Sq. ft. bearing unit No.001, B-13, Ground floor with OPs in their project at JOP PALMS, Sector-28, Rohtak and deposited Rs.4,00,000/- with OPs on 25.01.2012 against receipt No.JOP Palms/093. At the time of booking, OPs told her that cost of flat would be charged @ Rs.2,366 per sq. ft and further 10% discount will be given to her. At that relevant time, OPs obtained copy of Voter Card-self attested and cash mentioned above from her and further assured that terms and conditions relating to said flat will be got signed from her, later on, and copy thereof will be given to her at the time of issuance of allotment letter, but at the time of allotment; no other terms and conditions were got signed from her nor supplied to her. It was assured that OPs will issue allotment letter of residential flat allotted to her within period of six months and actual physical possession of flat, duly completed in all respects, will be delivered to her within period of two years from date of booking. She further deposited different amount through cheques and online transfer on different dates with OPs. Few months after booking; OPs stopped construction work. She contacted OPs to complete construction and deliver possession of flat to her, but OPs did not start construction work even after more than three years. She availed loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda for making payment of above flat. She had paid total amount of Rs.35,59,097/- which is 90% of cost of said flat and is also paying interest on her home loan. As per plea; she is ready to pay remaining 10% towards cost of said flat, but OPs are not ready to hand over its possession to her till date (filing of complaint) and finally refused to accede her genuine request. The act of OPs is illegal and amounts to deficiency in their service. On these pleas; complaint has been filed for directing OPs to hand over possession of flat and to pay interest of loan amount i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- approx. and future interest of loan w.e.f. 14.05.2016 till date of its clearance; to pay her Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. In response, OPs raised contest. In their defence, they have admitted about receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- and also admitted about receipt of payments from time to time as per agreed construction linked payment plan. It is pleaded that housing project was to be completed in different phases as per realization of amount from customers. There is no delay on the part of OPs, as superstructure of project has already been completed much before time and only furnishing work is pending. There is no delay caused from their part and it (delay) is only due to non-payment of installments by other several willful defaulter/customers. For default of other speculative customers; OPs shall not be penalized and made to suffer. Company shall make every endeavor to hand over possession of flat to complainant at earliest possible. It is pleaded that company has/had never told and mentioned that possession shall be handed over within 24 months. There is no deficiency in service on part of OPs. By denying other contents of complaint; its dismissal has been sought.
4. Complainant led evidence, oral as well as documentary but OPs did not lead evidence and their evidence was closed by learned District Consumer Commission vide its order dated 22.02.2021.
5. On analyzing the evidence; learned District Consumer Commission-Rohtak allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.08.2021 (impugned herein) and directed OPs to deliver offer of possession of flat in question to complainant within one month from date of decision and also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.35,59,097/- from 17.12.2016 till offer of possession of flat in question. OPs shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to her. Complainant is directed to pay further installments as per agreement after receiving the actual physical possession.
6. Feeling aggrieved; OP No. 1 has preferred this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for parties has been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
8. Learned counsel for appellant has urged that impugned order dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Commission is grossly illegal on all fronts; be it legal or factual. It is contended that delay in completing construction of subject flat, or for that matter; construction of project in question had occasioned because of non-payment of installments by several defaulting customers. It is urged that OP (builder)/appellant has/had never assured complainant about any time line for delivering her subject flat. Further it is urged that component of interest @9% p.a. was too heavy for OP/appellant to bear. Further, it is urged that flat was booked by complainant on 25.01.2012 and complaint was filed on 05.04.2018 which was time barred and learned District Consumer Commission has failed to consider even this aspect.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has supported the impugned order dated 11.08.2021 being the outcome of proper appreciation of material brought on record before learned District Consumer Commission. It is urged that complainant’s complaint filed on 05.04.2018 was within prescribed period of limitation.
10. On analyzing rival submissions; this Commission is of opinion that present appeal does not carry any substance/merit. Admittedly, appellant-builder has received Rs.35,59,097/- from complainant, towards cost of subject flat. Receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-14 substantiate this fact. Complainant has parted with this amount till June-2016 and that too, as per her stance, after raising loan from financial institution. Obviously, complainant must have encountered with adverse situation while remitting the loan amount with hefty rate of interest. This amount, as per her case was raised by her for making payment towards cost of subject flat. She has been deprived from the possession of flat for a long period after its booking and despite paying Rs.35,59,097/-. Meaning thereby, OP/appellant/builder has created all sordid conditions for complainant and made her to land in a vulnerable state by enriching itself from her amount. It is no more res-integra that allottees cannot be made to wait for possession of flat allotted to her/him/them for infinite period. There can be no exception qua above observation in so far as present complaint is concerned. Admittedly, subject flat was booked by complainant in early 2012 (25.01.2012) and she has filed complaint after lapse of more than six years to voice her grievance against OPs. Needless to mention that since OPs has/had received amount from complainant mentioned above (Rs.35,59,097/-) till June-2016, therefore, in firm opinion of this Commission; for each passing day, hence after the due date meant for delivering possession of subject flat to complainant, qua which OPs have faulted and failed to deliver; there would be fresh cause of action accrued to her. In any case, from glance at receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-14; it is visible an unambiguous manner that complainant had made payments up to June-2016 (08.06.2016-Ex.C-14) and this process of making payment had begun from 25.01.2012 (Ex.C-4) and this complaint was filed on 05.04.2018. On the basis of above evidence it is deciphered that complaint filed by complainant is within prescribed period of limitation, if same is reckoned from 08.06.2016 (as per date mentioned on Ex.C-14-last payment). Hence, from above facts it is established that cause of action accrued in favour of complainant was continuous one. This observation of Commission stimulates, if conditions appended along with letter of allotment-Ex.C-1 are perused. The condition enumerates period of 30 months with grace period of 6 months with regard to availability of unit for possession. This period of 3 years (30 months plus six months grace period) has/had expired way back on 16.06.2017. Complaint was filed on 05.04.2018. Allotment letter-Ex.C-1 along with its terms and conditions constitute a binding contract between parties to be strictly adhered to. No deviation from it is permissible. Hence while examining from this angle too, this complaint is well within limitation, in-as-much as, relief of possession has been claimed by complainant. Consequently, contention of learned counsel of appellant centered on limitation is repelled. Collectively, from all relevant facets of this case which are writ large apparent and ex-facie proved too it is held in no uncertain terms that deficiency on the part of appellant is proved. Allied contention of learned counsel for the appellant that rate of interest (9% p.a.) as per order dated 11.08.2021 was too heavy has no credence in view of the gross lapse on the part of OPs, not to deliver possession of subject flat to complainant despite receiving about 90% of its cost from her and instead made her desperate to file consumer complaint. Consequently, in view of all these ground realities this Commission does not find any error in the observation of learned District Consumer Commission to award 9% interest p.a. on deposited amount of Rs.35,59,097/- from 17.12.2016 till offer of possession of subject flat in question to her.
11. As a sequel to above discussion; this Commission has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that this appeal must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. There is no illegality or perversity in impugned order dated 11.08.2021 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Rohtak in complaint No. 143 of 2018 titled as Sunita Devi Vs. M/s JOP International Ltd. and another and same is accordingly upheld and maintained.
12. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be refunded to it, after due identification and verification as per rules and on expiry of period meant for further appeal /revision, if any.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 21st November, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
