Haryana

StateCommission

A/1125/2017

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

21 Dec 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                               

                                      First Appeal No.1125 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.09.2017                                             Date of Decision:21.12.2018

 

Parsavnath Developers Limited, A company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Registered Office at Parsavnath Tower, Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Madan Dogra, Deputy General Manager.

Also At:-

Parsavnath City, Sector-8, G.T. Road, Sonepat, Haryana.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Vinod Kumar Bansal S/o Sh. Satpal Bansal, R/o F-24, Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085.

 

…..Respondent

 

 

Present:-             Mr.Satpal Dhamina, proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Mr. Aseem Gupta, Advocate for the respondent (already ex-parte)

 

CORAM:             Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                             Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

1.                Delay in filing the above mentioned appeal is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

2.                It was alleged by complainant-respondent that she purchased one residential plot measuring 300 sq. yards at the rate of Rs.3500/- per sq. yard situated at Parsvnath City, Sector-8, Block-A, Sonepat from S.P. Dhoot, which allotted to him by opposite parties (in short ‘O.Ps’) vide first payment receipt No.PC00594 dated 23.08.2004 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/-. The said plot was transferred in the name of complainant by the O.Ps vide application dated 09.02.2006 and O.Ps received a sum of Rs.3,65,000/- from him. It was further alleged that at the time of substituting his name in place of S.P. Dhoot it was assured by the O.Ps that 5% discount will be given to him on the total value of the plot and they will issue the allotment of the plot within a period of six months and possession will be given within a period of two years from the date of transfer. It was further alleged that he deposited Rs.5,40,000/- with the O.Ps as advance amount for allotment of plot and a period about 12 years had already been passed, but the O.Ps failed to hand over the possession of the said plot. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps by alleging that Sh. S.P. Dhoot has transferred his rights in respect of the plot in favour of the complainant which was endorsed on 09.02.2006 and complainant had given an undertaking-cum-affidavit dated 08.02.2006 stating that in case of non allotment of the plot in the said project, he will accept the refund of the amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of nomination. It was further submitted that O.Ps have not caused any mental agony or harassment to the complainant and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

4.                After hearing both the parties by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat  (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 05.04.2017 and directed as under:-

“Thus, we hereby directions the respondents to allot the plot to the complainant having area measuring 300 sq. yards in Block A or B in Sector-8, Parsvnath City, Sonepat, where it is available for its allotment. The respondents are further directed to raise demand with regard to their balance amount in respect of the plot from the complainant without interest and the complainant is also directed to deposit the said balance amount with the respondents without any interest. The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.”

 

5.               Feeling aggrieved therefreom, appellant-OP has preferred this appeal.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Satpal Dhamija, proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for appellant-O.P as well as Sh.Aseem Gupta, Advocate for respondent-complainant. With their kind assistance the entire records had been properly perused and examined.

7.               As far as the contentions raised on behalf of appellant-O.P is concerned, he had sought interest payable by the respondent-complainant on the amount which has not been paid by her well in time. Similarly, the contentions raised on behalf of respondent-complainant was that as per the terms and conditions of buyer’s agreement, the possession has not been delivered to the complainant. In fact, it is a case, where there is a lapse on part of both the parties. Since, the builder could not delivered the possession of the plot in question as per the terms and conditions and in case of the delay, if any, in making the payment of installment or the amount to be paid by the complainant, the appellant is not entitled to get the interest. Contrary to it, there is a delay in delivery of possession of the plot, learned District Forum, Sonepat rightly allowed the complaint and granted the interest as well as compensation. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 

8.                Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

 

December 21^st, 2018             Manjula                                  Ram Singh Chaudhary                                            Member                                  Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                           Addl.Bench