Haryana

StateCommission

CC/166/2016

AJAY KUMAR THAKRAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TARANG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

H.C.SUKHIJA

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.166 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 15.06.2016                            Date of Decision:25.07.2016

 

1.      Sh.Ajay Kumar Thakral S/o Sh.Ish Kumar Thakral

2.      Dr. Sweta Rai W/o Sh.Ajay Kumar Thakral

Both residents of Flat No.401 Tarang Orchids, Plot No.41/42, Link road, Faridabad, Haryana.

…..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Tarang Infrastructure Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sh. Sanjiv Aggarwal.

2.      M/s Sanjiv Aggarwal, Managing Director.

          D-2/22, DLF, Sector-10, Faridabad-121006.

…..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.H.C.Sukhija, Advocate counsel for the complainants.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by the complainants that O.Ps. were constructing a residential group housing complex under the nomenclature of Tarang Orchids in Sector 28, Faridabad. As per their assurance to provide good quality flats, they booked one flat measuring 2700 sq. feet on 08.11.2011. It was assured by O.Ps. that construction would be complete by 31.07.2012 and positively by 31.01.2013. They paid Rs.1,07,52,516/- to O.Ps. till the month of June/July 2012.  They have further paid Rs.8,38,331/- under compulsion to take possession of the flat.  Hon’ble National Commission has opined in so many cases, as mentioned in the complaint, that in case of delay in delivery of possession, complainants are entitled for interest @ 18% per annum.  Possession was offered to them in the month of June 2015 and there is delay of about three years. Compensation @ Rs.5/- sq. feet qua late possession is very meager. O.Ps. demanded Rs.11,45,431/- in addition to the original price due to increase in the area, but, did not explain about the same.  They have also failed to provide basic amenities such as water, sewerage, electricity etc.   They were forced to spend huge amount on rent and suffered loss as could not claim benefit of rebate in income tax. They be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.81,50,000/- as detailed below:-

“(a)    On account of compensation for delay of  about three years in delivery of flat to the complainants.                                Rs.40,00,000/-

(b)     Compensation on account of poor quality of materials used for finishing the said flat, as detailed in Schedule 3.                                    Rs.10,00,000/-

(c )    On account of not making available user of club facility, non provision of various other services as mentioned above, and for further directions to provide such services in the complex within time bound frame work.                            Rs.10,00,000/-

(d)     On account of compensation for loss of income tax rebate on account of late delivery of possession.                                   Rs.1,50,000/-

(e)     On account of sufferings due to physical hardships, mental torture and agony. Rs.20,00,00/-”

2.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of the booking of the flat it was  told by O.Ps. that possession would be delivered by 31.07.2012 and late to late by 31.01.2013, whereas the possession has been offered in the month of June-2015,  after about three years.  During this period they have to reside in rented accommodation and pay Rs.16,000/- per month. They could not claim rebate in income tax and suffered loss on this account.  Agreement to pay Rs.5/- per month  per sq. feet for delay in possession is on the lower side as per opinion of Hon’ble National expressed in consumer complaint No.427 of 2014 titled as Shri Satish Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. decided on 08.06.2015 wherein it is opined that interest should have been given @ 18% per annum on the amount already deposited from the date of deposit.  They have also not provided amenities, as mentioned above. They are demanding Rs.11,45,431/- for additional construction whereas  there is no such additional construction.  So they be directed to give compensation as mentioned above.

4.      This argument is devoid of any force.  It appears that complainants have inflated claim to bring this complaint within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that when complainants purchased this flat, agreement was signed in between them and O.P. on 08.11.2011.  It is no-where mentioned in the agreement dated 08.11.2011 that area of flat cannot be increased. As per this agreement there can be increase or decrease up to 10% of the super area. It is no where mentioned therein that consent of the allottee was required.  As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.1,07,52,516/- when there is extra construction he has to pay for the same.  

5.      Further, when possession is offered they are not entitled for interest as claimed by them keeping in view the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court Commission expressed in Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Raje Ram, 1(2009) CPJ, 56 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that where possession is given at old rate, party has got benefit of escalation in price. Interest should not be awarded on amounts paid by allottees due to delay in allotment In such like cases award of interest is neither warranted nor justified.

6.      More so, compensation claimed by complainant is highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record.  At the time of admission of complaint Commission can see whether the compensation claimed is inflated or not to bring complaint within it’s pecuniary jurisdiction.  The instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law.  They cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because they are based on altogether different facts. In that case possession was not delivered and refund was ordered that is why higher rate of interest was granted.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      Complainants may file complaint before competent fora and they may be given benefit of the time consumed before this Commission for the computation of period for limitation in subsequent proceedings, if any, as per o9pinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

 

July, 25th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.