Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/126/2015

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (HOUSEFED) - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Mehra & Lakhbir Singh, Adv.

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint	:	126 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.07.2015

 

Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Siri Chand Dawar, resident of 24, Fauji Street, Mohalla Makhdoom Pura, Jalandhar City, Punjab.

……Complainant.

Versus

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (HOUSEFED), Punjab, SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

              ....Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate proxy for Sh. Lakhbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

              Sh. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party was running the business of real estate in India. In the months of January-February 2009, the Opposite Party invited applications, from general public through advertisement, in leading newspapers, while offering flats, on easy instalments, in their project “Cooperative Housing Complex” at Banur, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali on Chandigarh-Rajpura Highway. It was stated that, as per the brochure alongwith the application form, there were three category of flats viz. Category-1, Category-2 and Category-3 (EWS). It was further stated that the complainant, who was in need of his own residential house, and could not afford property, at Chandigarh, decided to purchase a residential flat, in the project of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant applied for Category-1 flat and deposited Rs.1,01,000/- alongwith the application form/brochure. It was further stated that as per the application form/brochure, the tentative cost of Category-1 flat was Rs.20.18 Lacs.

2.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party informed the complainant, vide letter dated 28.01.2009, Annexure C-4, that he had been allotted Category-1 flat, at the tentative cost of Rs.20.18 lacs. It was further stated that the remaining amount of instalments, was required to be paid by the complainant, from time to time, as per the schedule of payment. It was further stated that since no specific date of delivery of possession of the flat, in question, was given by the Opposite Party, as such, the same was sought, by the complainant, from it (Opposite Party), under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005). It was further stated that the Opposite Party informed, under the RTI Act, 2005, vide letter dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure C-5) that possession of the flat, in question, was likely to be delivered, in the last quarter of the year 2011. It was further stated that the complainant kept on requesting the Opposite Party, by visiting its Office regularly, for delivery of possession of the flat, in question, but it lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other.  
3.       It was further stated that the Opposite Party issued letter dated 17.10.2014, Annexure C-7, intimating the complainant, that the final price of the flat was arrived at Rs.33 lacs, which was approximately 60% more than the tentative price of the flat, as claimed at the time of allotment. It was further stated that the Opposite Party further intimated that possession of the flat, in question, would be given, on complete payment of the aforesaid amount, on or before 15.02.2015. It was further stated that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.20,93,449/- till 10.02.2015, towards cost of the flat, in question. It was further stated that the last payment of Rs.8,36,449/- was made on 10.02.2015, through RTGS. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party, sought justification and requested it to disclose the criteria, on the basis of which, the final cost of the flat was arrived at Rs.33 lacs. It was further stated that the functioning of the Opposite Party could be seen from the fact that due to the alleged corrupt practices, adopted by the contractor, in connivance with some of its Officials, in some other project, FIR No.2 dated 02.05.2012 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471 and 120B IPC and under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squard-I, Mohali, was registered. 
4.       It was further stated that the delay in execution of the project, by the Opposite Party, could not be attributed to the allottees, which led to such a huge demand from them (allottees) illegally. It was further stated that the complainant was not running away, from paying any reasonable amount, after deducting all those factors, which caused delay, as he was not responsible in any manner. It was further stated that, as per the application form/brochure, the complainant had the option to pay the remaining 40% amount of the price, in 120 equal monthly instalments of Rs.13,017/- per month alongwith interest @15% P.A.. It was further stated that, however, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 17.10.2014, Annexure C-7, demanded Rs.21,18,449/- in one go, till 15.02.2015, which was totally illegal and arbitrary. It was further stated that as per the letter dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure C-5), the Opposite Party was duty bound to deliver possession of the flat, in question, by the last quarter of 2011, but it failed to deliver the same, despite receiving the requisite payment, as per the schedule of payment.
5.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, the instant complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party to give the details on the basis of which, final cost of the flat was fixed; handover possession of the flat immediately at the original price thereof; or in the alternative, refund the said amount, deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @24% per annum, from the respective dates of deposits; pay Rs.15,00,000/-, as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; and Rs.33,000/- as litigation cost.
6.       The Opposite Party was served, put in appearance on 07.07.2015, and filed its written version, on the same day. In the written statement, the Opposite Party pleaded that since the question of pricing could not be gone into by this Commission, as such, the consumer complaint was not maintainable. It was stated that the Opposite Party, being a Cooperative Society, was registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It was denied that the Opposite Party was running the business of real-estate. It was stated that the object of the Opposite Party was to provide houses/flats on “no profit no loss basis”, which could not be compared with other builders. It was further stated that the Opposite Party offered 906 flats, for shelter-less economical weaker sections of the Punjab State and Class III & IV employees of Punjab Government, and its undertakings/cooperatives at Banur, on easy instalments. It was further stated that the booking opened on 17.11.2008 and closed on 16.12.2008. It was further stated that, on public demand, 650 flats, out of the aforesaid flats, were offered to the general public, for which booking opened on 10.02.2009 and closed on 20.03.2009. It was further stated that the flats were offered under partially self-financing scheme, and balance payment was to be made, in easy instalments. It was admitted that, in the brochure, three category of flats were offered, as per the salient features mentioned therein.
7.       It was further stated that the complainant applied for the allotment of Category I flat, and was allotted the same, at the lowest price, than any other Agency, in the State of Punjab. It was further stated that the final cost of the flat was to be determined, before offering the possession. It was further stated that time was not the essence of contract. It was further stated that the Opposite Party tried its best to complete the project, as early as possible, but since the site was located on the Zirakpur-Patiala Highway and was a low lying area by 8’/9’ below the highway road level, it was delayed. It was further stated that the construction of civil, public health and external works was started in November 2009, after awarding the contract to M/s Deepak Builders. It was further stated that during the execution of construction work, the site got flooded a number of times, due to heavy rains, and, as such, the same (construction) could not be undertaken till the time, rain water was drained out. It was further stated that there was scarcity of building material. It was further stated that due to the environment clearances, there was ban on mining in the State and, therefore, sand, gravel and bricks were not available, which also resulted into delay in execution of the project.
8.       It was further stated that not only this, delay was also caused by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL), as it did not provide the required load, in the first instance, as a result whereof, the Opposite Party had to file Petition No.46 of 2013 before the Punjab State Regulatory Commission, which, vide order dated 24.10.2013, directed it (PSPCL) to work out the load of the complex. It was further stated that since the said order was not complied with by the PSPCL, the Opposite Party had to again file Petition No.06/2014, whereafter, a Joint Committee was constituted to inspect the site and work out the load of the entire complex. It was further stated that the Punjab State Regulatory Commission, decided the case, in favour of the Opposite Party, vide order dated 29.04.2014 (Annexure OP-4) and directed the PSPCL to release the connection at 11 KV supply line instead of 66 KV sub-station, and it was only thereafter, that the NOC was issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer.
9.       It was further stated that the draw of lots was held and specific flat numbers were allotted and, therefore, the exact/final cost of each flat was worked out after the completion of the project. It was further stated that the estimate was prepared in the year 2008, when it was decided to launch the project for government employees, which was extended to the general public in the year 2009. It was further stated that the tentative price was fixed on the basis of the estimates prepared in 2008 and not in 2009. It was further stated that, therefore, after allotment of the work and completion of the project, there had been increase in the final cost of the flats, which was due to many factors detailed in Annexure OP-4 and other documents. It was further stated that letter dated 17.10.2014, Annexure C-7, was sent to the complainant, for payment of the balance amount of Rs.21,18,449/-, before handing over possession of the flat, in question.  It was further stated that it was also intimated to the complainant that 40% of the said amount, could be paid in 120 equated monthly instalments with interest @12% per annum instead of 15% per annum, as mentioned in the brochure. It was further stated that the rate of interest was reduced from 15% P.A to 12% P.A. as is evident from the letter dated 17.10.2014, Annexure C-7. It was further stated that the complainant was liable to make payment, in the manner, stated above, before possession of the flat was handed over to him. It was further stated that, on failure to take possession, watch and ward charges, as mentioned in the brochure, were payable by the complainant. 
10.       It was further stated that since the complainant had sought refund after possession of the flat had been offered to him vide Annexure C-7, therefore, the same could not be made in view of Clause 4 of the brochure. It was denied that any FIR was registered in respect of the project at Banur. It was also denied that there were any corrupt practices adopted by the contractor, in connivance with the officials of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
11.       The complainant filed rejoinder, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party.
12.       The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
13.       The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Sewa Singh, its Superintending Engineer, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached. 
14.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
15.       The Counsel for the complainant, submitted that since as per the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, issued in favour of the complainant, the tentative cost of Category-1 flat was shown as Rs.20.18 lacs, the same could not be enhanced to Rs.33 lacs, vide the letter dated 17.10.2014, Annexure C-7, vide  which possession thereof was offered. He further submitted that, since the enhancement of cost was highly arbitrary, on the part of the Opposite Party, as such, the complainant was not liable to pay the same. He further submitted that even no cogent and convincing evidence justifying the enhancement of price of the flat, in question, was produced by the Opposite Party. He further submitted that even as per the formula mentioned in the written reply by the Opposite Party, regarding the enhancement of price of the flat, in question, escalation could not be to the tune of Rs.33 lacs. He further submitted that, it was on account of enhancement in the price of the flat, that the complainant did not accept the offer of possession of the same, given by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 17.10.2014 Annexure C-7. He further submitted that there was delay, in offer of possession of the flat, as the complainant applied for the same, in the year 2008, whereas, the allotment letter Annexure C-4 was issued to him, on 28.01.2009 and offer of possession of the same was made vide  letter Annexure C-7 dated 17.10.2014. He further submitted that the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss, on account of delay, in offer of possession, that too at a highly exaggerated price, which was unjustifiable. He further submitted that the complainant was entitled to the possession of flat, in question, at the original rate, mentioned in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009, Annexure C-4. He further submitted that, in case, the Opposite Party was not ready and willing to hand over possession of the flat, in question, at the original price, as mentioned in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4,  the complainant was entitled to the refund of amount alongwith interest and compensation. He further submitted that by neither offering possession of the flat, in question, at the original price, mentioned in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, nor refunding the amount deposited by the complainant, alongwith interest and compensation, the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice.
16.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Party, submitted that in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4,    whereby Category-1 flat was allotted to the complainant, the cost thereof to the tune of Rs.20.18 lacs mentioned, was only tentative. He further submitted that according to Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, the exact/final cost of the flat was to be worked out, after the completion of the same (flat) but before handing over the possession thereof. He further submitted that the difference of cost due to the allotment of floor, change in covered area of flat or due to any other reason, whatsoever, was payable by the allottee, at the time of possession.  He further submitted that the price was liable to increase, due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specifications, design, increase in cost of land, rate of interest, amount of interest, increase in the cost of raw materials or for any reason, which was binding upon the complainant. He further submitted that, in the first instance, this Commission cannot go into the pricing of the flat, as it did not constitute the consumer dispute. He further submitted that even if it was assumed that such a question could be gone into by this Commission, full justification for increase in price was given by the Opposite Party, in Annexures OP/19 and OP/20. He further submitted that these documents were prepared, on the basis of record maintained by the Opposite Party, and was duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Sewa Singh, its Superintending Engineer. He further submitted that, as such, the enhancement was not arbitrary, but was wholly and completely justified. He further submitted that there was no time stipulated in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, by which the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant. He further submitted that the scheme floated by the Opposite Party was on “no profit no loss basis”. He further submitted that delay took place, in completing construction of the flat, and offer of possession thereof, on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Party. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, there was any intentional and deliberate delay, on the part of the Opposite Party, in constructing the flats and offering possession thereof, to the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant was not entitled to the refund of amount, deposited by him, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4. He further submitted that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.
17.       Admittedly, the complainant applied for Category-I Flat (General Public Scheme) in the Cooperative Housing Complex of the Opposite Party, at Banur, Distt. Patiala. He was allotted the same, vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4. The tentative cost of the flat was Rs.20.18 lacs. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Party could enhance the cost of the flat, or not. With a view to determine this question, Clause 8 of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, is relevant, which reads as under:-

“8.  The exact/final cost of the flat shall be worked out after the completion of flat but before handing over the possession of the flat. The cost difference due to allotment of floor, change in covered area of flat or due to any other reason whatsoever, the same shall be payable by the allottee at the time of the possession. The price is liable to increase due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specifications, design, increase in cost of land, rate of interest, amount of interest, increase in the cost of raw materials or for any reason and the same shall be binding upon you.”

 

18.       It is evident, from the afore-extracted Clause of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, that the price of the flat was liable to increase, due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specifications, design, increase in cost of land, rate of interest, amount of interest, increase in the cost of raw materials or for any other reason, which was binding upon the complainant. In the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, referred to above, it was mentioned that the cost of Rs.20.18 lacs shown therein was only tentative. This was indicative of the fact that the price was liable to increase, at the time of completion of the flats and offer of possession of the same. The allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, was accepted by the complainant, with eyes wide open. He was, thus, bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4. Since the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, were accepted by the complainant, he could not turn round and say that the same were not binding upon him. It is, therefore, held that the Opposite Party was entitled to enhance the cost of flat, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009, Annexure C-4, referred to above. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, that the cost of flat, could not be enhanced by the Opposite Party, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
19.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the enhancement of price of the flat, in question, by the Opposite Party was justifiable. The answer to this question, in our considered opinion, is, in the affirmative. The Opposite Party submitted the documents Annexure OP-19 and OP/20, which were duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Sewa Singh, its Superintending Engineer. Annexure OP/20, at pages 152 to 154 of the file, indicates various factors, on account whereof the price of the flats increased. For facility of reference, Annexure C-20, is extracted as under:-

 

 

 

“Category	Tentative price on the basis of rough estimate (in lakhs)	Present price (in lakhs)	Increase in the price (in lakhs)	Increase in percentage
I	20.18	32.80	12.62	62.54%
II	14.92	24.26	9.34	62.60%
III	5.98	9.75	3.77	63.04%

 

Due to increase in price, the increased amount and the increase in percentage is as under:-

Category	Reason for increase in the price	Tentative price on the basis of rough estimate (in lakhs)	Actual cost (in lakhs)	Increase in lakhs	Increase in percentage
	Rough estimates were prepared in 2008, on the basis of which scheme of flats was launched,. But the work was allotted in 2009. At that time, the price of the material increased due to which the amount of allotment was increased from the rough estimates.	10,950.67	13,254.68	2,304.01	21.04%
	Prices  increased due to escalation in the price of the goods, during the years 2009 to 2014 and according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Agency was paid according to the price index	Nil	1903.51	1903.51	17.38%
	Prices increased due to increase in the rate of service tax, by the Government of India	429.94	660.97	231.03	2.11%
	As per the conditions of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, construction of S.T.P., Plant and Double Plumbing System and Rain Water Harvesting Well was compulsory due to which the price increased	Nil	169.48	169.48	1.55%
	According to the Rules of the Punjab Power Corporation Limited, H.T/L.T. system was installed due to which the price increased	Nil	454.90	454.90	4.15%
	Additional cost was paid to the Municipal Committee, due to sewerage line and the price increased.	Nil	158.02	158.02	1.44%
	Labour cess increased.	105.40	173.05	67.65	0.62%
	Interest paid by Housefed on the borrowed capital.	900.00	2202.33	1302.33	11.89%
	Payment was made to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited for feeder line.	Nil	11.00	11.00	0.10%
	Price increased due to increase in items because of the requirements of the site, therefore price increased	Nil	260.00	260.00	2.38%
				Total increase in % age	62.66%

 

20.       It was on account of the factors indicated in Annexure OP/20 extracted above, that there was increase in the price of the flat. As stated above, the said document is duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Sewa Singh, its Superintending Engineer. Superintending Engineer is a very Senior Officer in hierarchy. The Opposite Party is equipped with technical hands, who could be said to be experts in the construction of buildings. The Opposite Party was, thus, possessed of the means and was within its rights to assess the expenditure incurred by it, on the construction of flats. No contrary cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that the documents Annexures OP-19 and OP/20 were, in any manner, incorrect. There is no reason, not to rely upon these documents, duly supported by the affidavit of Sh. Sewa Singh, Superintending Engineer. Under these circumstances, it is held that legal and valid justification was furnished by the Opposite Party, for increase in the price of the flats, offer of possession whereof was made to the complainant, vide letter dated 17.10.2014 Annexure C-7. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, that enhancement of price of the flat, in question, was arbitrary and illegal, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. There was, therefore, no deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, by enhancing the price of the flat, in question, which was fully justified.
21.       The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any delay, on the part of the Opposite Party, in not raising construction of the flats and completion thereof, resulting into delay in offer of possession thereof.  It may be stated here, that in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 Annexure C-4, no time was stipulated, regarding the completion of construction of flat and offer of possession thereof, to the complainant. As stated above, it was a scheme launched by the Opposite Party, on “no profit no loss basis”. Even otherwise, sufficient evidence was produced by the Opposite Party, to prove that delay in completion of construction of flats, was on account of the reasons, beyond its control. It is evident that letter dated 13.01.2009 Annexure OP/1, was sent to the Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mohali, by the Superintending Engineer, Housefed, Punjab, that the land measuring 15.1979 Acres on which it (Housefed) proposed to raise construction of flats, was near the electricity grid. It was further intimated vide this letter that 05 electric lines,  were passing over the said site and the same be shifted. He was further intimated that the expenditure for shifting of the wires,  would be paid by the Housefed. Reply to this letter was sent by the Superintending Engineer, PSEB vide Annexure OP/2 dated 02.11.2010, giving the estimate of Rs.23,30,450/-. It was intimated that after deposit of this amount, further action shall be taken. It is further evident from Annexure OP/3 copy of the receipt that the amount of Rs.23,30,450/- was paid by the Housefed, on 10.12.2010, to the PSEB. The Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSPCL, issued letter to the SDO/OP, Sub-Division, Banur, to check the load calculations, as per the Commercial Circular No.35/2009. Thereafter, the AEE, PSPCL, Banur issued letter to the Opposite Party that the load demanded worked out to be 4953.564 KW and this could be released on 66 KV supply voltage, for which the Opposite Party was required to construct 66 kV Sub-Station. Thereafter,  the Opposite Party filed Petition No.46 of 2013, before the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chandigarh challenging the calculations of load. The said petition was disposed off, vide order dated 24.10.2013, which reads as under:-

“Thus the assertion of PSPCL to release load on 66 KV by assuming the load as 4953.564KW, calculated as per the guidelines issued vide CC No.35/2009 is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of CoS. The guidelines issued vide CC No.35/2009 are for design and planning of LD system and cannot be used to determine the supply voltage which is to be decided as per Clauses 4 and 5 of CoS.

The Commission, therefore,  directed that PSPCL shall first calculate actual load of individual occupants/consumer as per clause 9 of CoS and depending upon the total load of the colony arrived at as per clause 9 of CoS, the supply voltage shall be determined as per clauses 4 and 5 of CoS and connection of electricity supply shall be released, accordingly”.

22.       However, despite the fact that order dated 24.10.2013 was passed by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chandigarh, the PSPCL did not release 11 KV supply and, on the other hand, insisted upon construction of 66 KV substation. In these circumstances, again Petition No.6 of 2014 was filed by the Opposite Party, against the PSPCL, before the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chandigarh, for compliance of the earlier order passed by it. Vide order dated 29.04.2014, copy whereof is Annexure OP/4, the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Chandigarh, determined supply of 11 KV and it was further directed that individual connections be released by the PSPCL, as per Rules and Regulations, after completion of  the requisite formalities. It was after the passing of order dated 29.04.2014,  that the letter, copy whereof is Annexure OP/5 dated 12.06.2014  was issued by the PSPCL, which was received by the Opposite Party on 18.06.2014. Not only this, due to mining problem, as is evident, from Annexures OP/6 to OP/14 and OP/16 that the progress of work was affected adversely, as extensions had to be granted to the contractor, from time to time. It was, on account of these reasons, that there was delay in construction and completion of flats, in the project. The delay was, therefore, on account of the reasons, beyond the control of the Opposite Party. Since, the scheme launched by the Opposite Party was on “no profit no loss basis”, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that by delaying the construction and completion thereof, it was to get any benefit. Since there was no intentional and deliberate delay, on the part of the Opposite Party, in completing the construction and offer of possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant, vide letter dated 17.10.2014 Annexure C-7, he was not entitled to any compensation, claimed by him.
23.       No doubt, the Counsel for the complainant, referred to the formula, mentioned in the written reply, by the Opposite Party, and argued that the same was not correctly applied while enhancing the price. It may be stated here, that  the Counsel for the complainant, could not convince this Commission, as to how the formula was not correctly applied, while enhancing the price of the flat. As stated above, various factors were taken into consideration, as are mentioned in Annexures OP/19 and OP/20, while determining the enhancement of price and, ultimately, the same was enhanced. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stand rejected.
24.       The final price of the flat, in question, was determined as Rs.33,00,000/-. Since, the amount of Rs.20,93,449/-, has already been paid by the complainant, which has not been disputed by the Opposite Party, the remaining amount of Rs.12,06,551/- is to be paid by the complainant, in 120 equal monthly instalments,  spread over a period of 10 years, with interest @15% P.A., as per the terms and conditions of the same. However, the rate of interest has been reduced to 12% P.A., by the Opposite Party. The complainant has also the option to pay the entire remaining amount of Rs.12,06,551/- towards the enhanced price of the flat, in lumpsum, within 30 days, without interest, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
25.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
26.       For the reasons, recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, and the Opposite Party is directed as under:-

(i)   To hand over legal physical possession of Category-I flat No.1906, Floor No.2^nd, Block No.19,  (under General Public Scheme) in its Cooperative Housing Complex at Banur, District Patiala, to the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, on completion of all the formalities and payment of the balance amount of Rs.12,06,551/- by him (complainant) either in lumpsum within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order or in 120 equated monthly instalments spread over a period of 10 years  with interest @12% per annum.

(ii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

27.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

28.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

23.07.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Rg