Haryana

StateCommission

A/98/2016

RANBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNIVERSAL GREENS DEVELOPERS PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

P.R.YADAV

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No  :         98 of 2016

Date of Institution:      29.01.2016

Date of Decision :        12.04.2016

 

Ranbir Singh son of Sh. Hari Singh, resident of T-4/503, Park View Residency, Sector 3, Gurgaon -122017, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Universal Greens Developers Private Limited, Universal Trade Tower, 8^th Floor, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon -122001 through its Managing Director/Directors.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Siddharth Gulati, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated December 01^st, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by him was allowed.  M/s Universal Greens Developers Private Limited-respondent (for short, ‘Builder’)-respondent was directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and Rs.15000/- litigation expenses to the complainant.    

2.      Ranbir Singh-complainant booked two bedroom flat with the builder.  He paid Rs.2,50,000/- as booking amount to the builder. The builder failed to deliver the possession of flat to the complainant.  He requested the builder to refund the booking amount but to no avail.

3.      The builder in its reply pleaded that complainant was not a ‘consumer’.  The flat was cancelled without refunding the booking amount because the complainant did not make the installment within time.  

4.      Complainant has come up in appeal by raising two fold pleas, firstly, that the interest be allowed from the date of deposit on the awarded amount and secondly, the rate of interest be enhanced from 9% to 18% per annum.   

5.      First contention regarding payment of interest from the date of deposit is convincing. The complainant is certainly entitled to the interest from the date of deposit of the amount and not from the date of filing of the complaint. Regarding another contention of enhancement of interest, this Commission considers that the rate of interest is reasonable and does not call for any interference. 

6.      For the reasons recorded supra, the impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 12.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K