Delhi

StateCommission

CC/243/2014

RUBY THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :11.12.2018

Date of Decision : 17.12.2018

COMPLAINT NO.243/2014

In the matter of:

 

1. Ms. RubyThakur,

W/o. Rajmohan Thakur

 

2. Shri Rajmohan Thakur,

S/o. Late Shri Mahakant Thakur

 

Both R/o.

Flat no.3-B, 044, G.C. Grant, Plot No.2C,

Vaibhav Khand, Indrapuram,

Ghaziabad-201010.                                                           Complainant

 

•  

 

1. Supertech Ltd.,

Through its director,

Regd. Office 114, 11^th Floor,

Hemkunt Chamber No.89,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110014.

 

Also at:

Supertech Ltd.,

Supertech House, B-28/29,

Sector-58, Noida-201307 (UP)                                    Opposite Party

                                                                                   

•  

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The complainants are wife and husband. Their case is that they booked a flat no.C-2/502 with total super built up area of 1400 sq. ft. in project  named “Renesa” situated at 001 Sector-118/GHP, Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar. The cost of the flat was Rs. 60,91,431/-. Allotment letter was issued on 29.12.12. The complainants paid Rs,11,80,246/- to the OP as per payment schedule. On 11.02.14 complainants got a mail from OP mentioning that name of the project has been changed to “Romano”. The complainants found that the booking form accompanying the said mail mentioned flat no.502 in Tower C-2. They made comparison regarding location and specification with the earlier flat allotted to them. They were shocked and surprised to see that location and specification were entirely different from earlier one. Complainants suggested to change the offered flat to C-2/506 , 406, 606 or any flat in C-2 Tower but the number should be 6 up to 10^th floor.  The complainants sent notice date 08.03.14. They were not liable to pay further amount or delay charges due as per terms of earlier allotment. The OP is liable to refund amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest @24% per annum. Hence this complaint for directing OP to allot a flat of the same location and specification in project “Romano” or an alternate flat no.406, 606 or any flat in C-2 Tower but the number of last digit should be 6 up to 10^th floor which has same specification or location. In the alternate they have sought directions to the OP to pay Rs.11,80,246/- alongwith interest @24% per annum, difference of escalated price or market price which has increased after booking of the flat. They have also sought direction of Rs.10 lakhs for compensation.
2. The possession was to be handed over by July, 2015 with grace period of six months as per clause-1 of allotment letter at page-2 of the allotment letter filed alongwith complaint at page-17.
3. The OP filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that complainant have not come with clean hands, the complaint involves complicated question of facts and law which necessarily entail leading of copious evidence. The issues can not be addressed in a consumer complaint which follows a summary procedure. The complainants booked flat under construction linked payment plan according to which  they was supposed to pay Rs.5,39,143/- at the time of booking. They paid only Rs.11,80,246/- as against the total cost of  Rs.60,91,431/-. The OP has rightly raised delayed payment charges of Rs.4,37,529/- as per agreed terms and conditions. The complainants failed to enter into  an agreement after the change of unit which shows that they are not genuine buyers but investors who invested the money for appreciation. On merits they stated that as per  desire of complainant, it offered unit no.C-2, 506 to the complainants but complainants failed to pay the remaining instalments.
4. The complainants filed affidavit of complainant no.1 in evidence. OP filed affidavit of Shri Arvind Kumar, AR. Both the parties filed written arguments. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. Counsel for the complainant submitted that possession was to be offered by July, 2015 or latest by January, 2016. After the expiry of the said period they cannot be compelled to accept possession, more so when the OP has changed the Tower, location, area. Now there was no preferential location and he unit was not facing park.
5. Counsel for the OP submitted that since the prices in the market have come down, the complainants have tried to find out a way to seek refund instead of flat.
6. Anyhow even during final arguments the counsel for OP admitted one thing for flats were likely to be completed shortly. It means that flats are not complete even as on today. Thus offer for possession is a paper offer only. Complainants cannot be  made to wait indefinitely.
7. I feel that complainants have made out a case for refund. Anyhow the interest claimed by them is high. In the present scenario the rate of interest can be 8% only  and not 24 % claimed by the complainants. More over there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act for interest. Interest is payable in the form of compensation. Thus complainant can not get interest and compensation both.
8. To sum up the OP is directed to refund of Rs.11,80,246/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of respective payments till the date of refund within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                          MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•