Delhi

StateCommission

CC/187/2014

VIJAY BHALLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

U-TURN HOUSING PVT. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :08.02.2018

Date of Decision :09.02.2018

COMPLAINT NO.186/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Prakash Chand Goel,

S/o. Late Shri Gyan Chand Goel,

R/o. 27, 3^rd Floor,

Manak Vihar,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                               ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

1.         M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001           …….Opposite Party No.1

 

2          Mr. Nikhil Tripathi (Managing Director),

M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001          

Also at:

            R/o.48 D Pocket-B,

            Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.                                       ….Opposite Party No.2

 

3.         Mrs. Neelam Tripathi (Director),

            M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Also at:

            R/o. 48 D, Pocket-B,

            Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.                                       …….Opposite Party No.3

 

4.         Mr. Prashant Kumar,

            (Authorized Signatory),

M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001           …….Opposite Party No.4

____________________________________________________________________

                                                                       

AND

 

 

 

COMPLAINT NO.187/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Vijay Bhalla,

S/o. Late Shri K.D. Bhalla,

R/o. D-18, 1^st Floor, G.K. Enclave,

New Delhi-110048.                                                                                     ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

1.         M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001           …….Opposite Party No.1

 

2          Mr. Nikhil Tripathi (Managing Director),

M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001          

Also at:

            R/o.48 D Pocket-B,

            Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.                                       ….Opposite Party No.2

 

3.         Mrs. Neelam Tripathi (Director),

            M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

Also at:

            R/o. 48 D, Pocket-B,

            Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.                                       …….Opposite Party No.3

 

4.         Mr. Prashant Kumar,

            (Authorized Signatory),

M/s. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.,

            Regd. Office-1507, Amba Deep Building,

            14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001           …….Opposite Party No.4

 

CORAM

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

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

 

Present:           Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for the complainants.

                        None for the OPs.

 PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

          Both the complaints, involving same facts and identical question of law are being disposed of by a common order, taking complaint no.186/2014 filed by SHri Prakash Chand  Goel Vs. U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others, as the lead case.

          Shri Prakash Chand Goel has filed this complaint  before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others alleging deficiency of service in not handing over the possession of the plot applied for by him and praying for the relief as under:-

a)      To direct the OPs to pay the complainant the sum of Rs.10,17,675/- so deposited by the complainant with the OP no.1 along with interest @24% from the date of deposit of the amount till its realization; and

 

b)      To direct the OPs to pay compensation/ damages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the harassment, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant due to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, wrong and

 

c)      OPs be directed to pay the penalty to the complainant @ 2,000/- per sq ft; and

 

d)      To direct the OPs to pay additional expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant viz, pursuing the aforesaid project, various correspondences, complainant, including several visit of OPs office and project site at Jaipur and so many repeated phone called etc. and;

 

e)      To award pendent-elite and future interest @24% p.a. on the aforesaid claimed amount up till the date of payment of the same, in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and

 

f)       To award the cost of litigation in favour of the complainant and against the OPs; and/ or

 

g)      Pass any further or other orders(s) or direction(s) which this Hon’ble Forum as may be deems fit and proper  in the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

 

           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.

Shri Prakash Chand Goel, for short complainant, pursuant to an advertisement published by the U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP, inviting applications for the purchases of plot in their up coming project “Silver City” situated at Diggy Road, Jaipur, booked a plot of 300 sq yds. in the above mentioned project @Rs.2,975/- per sq yrs; and consequently paid to the OP a sum of Rs.2,62,000/-. The complainant paid balance amount on various dates in installments as Rs.72,688/- on 13.02.2007, an amount of Rs.1,40,050/- on 28.03.2007 and Rs.5,42,937/- on 21.07.2011. Total amount paid in the process was Rs.10.17,675/-.The amount paid by the complainant was acknowledged  by the OP. It was agreed between the parties that the physical possession of the plot would be handed over within 12 months from the date of registration.

However, the plot in question was never handed over to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP on several occasions but all his efforts done for obtaining the possession of the plot proved an exercise in futility. This was followed by a legal notice but even the legal notice could evoke no response.

The  worse happened when the complainant came to know that the OPs have not even obtained the approval from the Jaipur Development Authority for developing the project. FIR has also been filed and a criminal case in this behalf is pending in the court of law enjoying the jurisdiction therefor.

In these circumstances the complaint has been filed before this commission for the redressal of his grievances. OPs were noticed and when despite service of notice and despite statutory period having been elapsed, no reply was filed, this Commission passed an order on 09.12.2015 proceeding exparte as against the OPs. The complainant has also filed his evidence reiterating  what was averred and alleged in the complaint.

The matter was listed before us for final hearing on 08.02.2018 when the ld. Counsel for the complainant appeared and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.

The ld.  Counsel for the complainant stressed the point that despite he having made the payment as required and despite the agreed time having elapsed, the OP have not  adhered to the terms of the agreement in handing over the physical possession of the plot which they were under an obligation to do so.

The ld. Counsel for the complainant, has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in not handing over the possession of the plot in question within the time, resulting in the  financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. In that view of the matter the inevitable conclusion is that there was gross “deficiency”, as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, on the part of OP in its failure to deliver possession of the subject plot to the complainants in terms of the agreement to sell. It is a trite law that where possession of property is not delivered within the stipulated period, the delay so caused is not only deficiency in rendering of service, such deficiencies or omissions tantamount to unfair trade practice as defined, under Section 2 (r ) (ii) of the act, as well. (See : Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta – (1994) 1 SCC 243).

Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the opinion, that the complaint deserves to be accepted.

Having arrived at the said conclusion, the core question for consideration is as to how the complainants are to be compensated for the monetary loss, mental and physical harassment they have suffered at the hands of OP on account of non-delivery of the allotted plot.

The provisions of the act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission/ Forum to redress any injustice done to a consumer. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend the compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, the Commission/ Forum must determine the extent of sufferance by the consumer due to action or inaction of the part of the OP. In Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh – (2004) 5 SCC 65, while observing that the power and duty to award compensation does not mean that irrespective of  facts of the case, compensation can be awarded in all matters on a uniform basis, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave certain instances and indicated the factors, which could be kept in view while determining adequate compensation. One of the illustrations, given in the said decision was between the cases, where possession of a booked/ allotted property was directed to be delivered  and the cases where only monies paid as sale consideration, are directed to be refunded. The Hon’ble Court observed, in this behalf, that in cases where possession is directed to be delivered to the complainant, the compensation for harassment  will necessarily have to be less because in a way that party is being compensated by increase in the value of the property he is getting. But in cases where monies are being simply refunded, then the party is suffering a loss inasmuch as he had deposited the money in the hope of getting a flat/ plot. He is not only deprived of the flat / plot, he has been deprived of the benefit of escalation of the price of the flat/ plot. Additionally, in our view, in such a situation, he also suffers substantial monetary loss on account of payment of interest on the loans raised; depreciation in the money value and escalation in the cost of construction etc., if it happens to be a plot of land, like in the present case.

          We have given our careful consideration to the subject matter, as also the law laid down by their Lordship. The complainant has prayed for the refund. Physical possession of the plot at this stage is out of question.

Accordingly we direct the OP to refund the principal amount with simple interest @10% per annum. This refund and the interest  be paid to the complainant by the OP within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

We order accordingly.

On these lines the complaint filed by Shri Vijay Bhalla No.187/2014 also stands disposed of with these direction.

Registrar of this Commission is requested to place on record a certified copy of this order in the case file no.C-187/2014 for records.

Copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.

          Both the case files be consigned to records.

 

                                                                                                (O.P.GUPTA)

                                                                                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)

          MEMBER