Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/107

GAUTAM MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                   Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

Complain Case No. 107/2012

In the matter of:

Shri Gautam Mishra

S/o Shri O.N.Mishra

R/o B-230, Priyadarshani Vihar

New Delhi-110092                                                .....Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Supertech CZAR Suites

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956

having its Registered Office At 1114, 11^th Floor

Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019

 

2. M/s Supertech CZAR Suites

Corp. Off. Shopprix Mall

IInd Floor, C-134 B, Sector-61

Noida, (U.P.)-301

 

3. ING Vysya Bank Ltd.

Consumer Finance Division

871, East Park Road

Karol Bagh

Delhi-110005                                      ....Opposite Parties                                                             

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

Judgement

1.      Facts of the complaint are that the complainant applied to M/s Supertech Ltd. in the project named Supertech CZAR Suites Residential Township, Noida, U.P. for allotment of a flat on 18.11.2006. The total consideration of the flat was Rs. 33,67,245/-. A letter of allotment dated 23.02.2007 was issued to the complainant by the OP-2. A tripartite agreement dated 21.02.2008 between the complainant, OP-1, 2 and OP-3 (ING Vyasa Bank Ltd.) was entered into. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,17,245/- from his own resources and the amount of Rs. 28,50,000/- was paid to OP-1 & 2 by OP-3. Grievance of the complainant is that after several visits to the site, he found the project incomplete. Present complaint is filed on 11.07.2012. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 5,17,245/- alongwith interest 15% p.a. Complainant has also prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 23,69,747/- paid by him to the OP-1 & 2 against the bank loan.
2.      In its defence OP-1 & 2 raised a plea that the complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 28,50,000/- on the due date i.e. 01.03.2007. The said amount was however paid on 28.02.2008. Contention of the OP-1 & 2 is that the complainant had been avoiding payment of outstanding dues and chose to file the present complaint.
3.      In its written version OP-3 (ING Vyasa Bank Ltd.) submitted that the amount paid by the complainant against the aforesaid loan has been duly credited in the statement of accounts. OP-3 has prayed for dropping proceedings against him and pleaded that he is not a necessary party for adjudicating upon the controversy in question.
4.      Vide order dated 19.01.2015 this Commission directed OP-1 & 2 to file an affidavit disclosing the following informations.

1. Date of completion certified, if any issued.
2. The date on which the project if completed.
3. The dates of the letters of demand if any sent to the complainant.
4. Whether the complainant was ever asked to take over the possession of the flat if so copy of such letters.

 

5.      OP-1 & 2 have failed to file the affidavit referred to above. In the absence of any affidavit from the side of the OP-1 & 2 an adverse interference is withdrawn to the effect that the OP-1 & 2 have not been issued completion certificate so far. A bipartite agreement between the complainant and OP-1 & 2 was initially entered into on 27.02.2007. A tripartite agreement between the parties to the present complaint was entered into on 21.02.2008. In a span of about eight years, OP-1 & 2 have failed to handover the physical possession of the flat to the complainant. It is thus a clear case of ‘deficiency of service’. We, therefore, direct the OP-1 & OP-2 to pay to the complainant as under:

a)      to refund the amount of Rs. 5,17,245/- alongwith interest  @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit.

b)      to refund Rs. 23,69,747/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.    from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation.

c)     to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant.

d)    to pay litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

 

     The abovesaid payment shall be made by the OP-1 & 2 to the complainant within a period of sixty days from today failing which the OP-1 & 2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount accruing after the expiry of the period of sixty days from today.  Complaint is accordingly disposed of.

6.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)​

MEMBER