Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
OMAXE Ltd. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Dr. Ambuj Chaudhary
and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.300 and 496 of 2012
Decided on 13.2.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Abhinit Taneja, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Money deposited by complainant must be refunded by defaulting Builder along with 18% interest.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Real estate—Group housing project—Booking of flat—OPs failed to start construction on project and they were not having necessary approvals from competent authorities—Complaint allowed by State Commission alongwith compensation and cost—Builder insisting that money should have been deposited with them based on payment plan given in year 2006, although they themselves entered into an agreement with complainant after a gap of almost three years—Even after signing agreement they were not able to deliver property as per terms and conditions of agreement—It shall be in interest of justice that money deposited by complainant is returned to him along with 18% interest.
Held: The State Commission in the impugned order have awarded interest @6% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant, relying upon the clause 28(f) of the agreement.
It is clear from the above clause that simple interest @6% p.a. is to be paid by the OP Builder to the complainant for the period of delay, only when the project was delayed for force majeure reasons, or for reasons beyond the control of the company. In the present case, there is no evidence of any force majeure conditions etc. and hence, the State Commission have taken an erroneous view that the complainant was entitled to the grant of interest @6% p.a. only.
The overall facts and circumstances of the present case bring out that the builder is insisting that the money should have been deposited with them, based on the payment plan given in the year 2006, although they themselves entered into an agreement with the complainant after a gap of almost 3 years, i.e., on 19.03.2009. Even after signing the said agreement they were not able to deliver the property as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, not to talk of understanding reached by them with the complainant as early as in the year 2006. It shall, therefore, be in the interest of justice that the money deposited by the complainant is returned to him along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit till realisation in accordance with the view taken in the orders cited above. It is made clear that the award of such interest shall amount to providing all-inclusive comprehensive compensation to the complainant. The first appeal, FA No.496/2012 is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is modified as stated above. The other appeal, FA No. 300/2012 filed by the OP Builder is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 17, 18 and 21)
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—These two first appeals filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the impugned order dated 07.05.2012, passed by the U.T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. CC-66/2011, filed by the complainant Dr. Ambuj Chaudhary against the Opposite Party (OP), M/s Omaxe Limited, Builder/Developer, vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to refund the sum deposited with them by the complainant along with interest and compensation. The complainant has challenged the impugned order, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the State Commission, whereas the OP have sought dismissal of the consumer complaint upon various grounds.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the OPs Builder/Developer floated a scheme for development of a group housing project at Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh under the name and style of “Omaxe Parkwoods”. As per the complainant, the basic price of the flat booked by him was fixed at Rs.16,94,550/-, out of which 15% of the said price was to be deposited at the time of booking. Accordingly, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- vide receipt No. 222360 dated 24.05.2006 and again deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No. 222403 dated 06.06.2006. As per the complainant, the OP Builder had undertaken to handover the possession of the property within 18 months from the date of booking. However, the OPs failed to start the construction on the project and they were not having necessary approvals even for the purpose, from the competent authorities. The complainant alleged that the OPs had allured the public by making false and misleading advertisement of handing over the possession within the said period. The OPs issued a letter dated 27.12.2008 to the complainant asking him to deposit the payment of instalments along with interest within 10 days. This was followed by another letter dated 11.02.2009 intimating about the outstanding amount of Rs.13,57,322.50ps. They further promised that the possession of the property would be delivered within 18 months from the date of signing the agreement. Consequently, an agreement was executed on 19.03.2009 between the parties, whereby a flat bearing no. 302 in Gulmohar C-Tower at 3rd Floor was allotted to the complainant. The complainant also made payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.13,57,322.50ps. in lump sum, after availing loan from the IDBI Bank limited, which was payable in 120 instalments of Rs.15,881/- each. The complainant alleged that the period of 18 months from the date of agreement, i.e., 19.03.2009 had also expired on 19.09.2010, but there was no development activity on the site. Despite contacting the OPs several times, writing letters to them and also issuing legal notice dated 11.08.2011, there was no fruitful result in the matter; even the reply to the legal notice was not sent by the OP. The complainant filed consumer complaint in question, seeking the following relief:—
“a. to refund the deposited amount, i.e., Rs.16,57,322/- along with interest @18% from the date of deposit till realisation.
b. to pay Rs.24,315/- as insurance paid by the complainant for the insurance of his home loan.
c. to pay Rs.8,65,000/- as rent paid by the complainant.
d. to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages suffered by the complainant on account of escalation of costs.
e. to pay punitive damages to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.
f. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
g. to pay the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.”
3. It was explained that the complainant had hired a rented accommodation where he stayed with effect from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 and a payment of Rs.8,65,000/- had been made as rent by the Fortis Hospital, where he
