Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Singla Builders &
Promoters Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Aman Kumar Garg —Respondent
First Appeal No.925 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 13/05/2016 in Complaint No. 137/2015 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 16.10.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Kumar Garg, in person
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-filing of written version to complaint before State Commission, amounts to admission of allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 19 and 21(a)(ii)—Real estate—Booking of flat—Denial of possession despite payment—State Commission directed that in case OP failed to complete flat in all respects within stipulated period, it shall refund amount deposited with it by complainant alongwith 10% interest—Non-filing of written version to complaint before State Commission, amounts to admission of allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint—In so far as huge delay of 319 days in filing appeal is concerned, version given by appellants does not provide any cogent and convincing explanation for delay in filing appeal—It was their duty to follow-up proceedings before State Commission and take necessary steps to defend case before that Commission—They should have taken further necessary action by filing appeal after the case was decided by State Commission—There are no valid reasons for condoning delay of 319 days and appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone—Even on merits, order passed by State Commission is based on a rational analysis of facts and circumstances on record—Appeal ordered to be dismissed being barred by limitation and also on merits. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 13.05.2016, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No.137/2015, vide which, the following directions were issued to the appellant/opposite party:-
i) to complete the flat, in all respects, and to issue the letter of possession and to deliver the actual possession to the complainant, within two months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order;
ii) to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per square foot per month from 28.02.2015 till the actual delivery of possession of the flat;
iii) to pay Rs.1,50,000/-, as compensation for the physical, mental and financial sufferings suffered by the complainant; and
iv) to pay Rs.11,000/-, as litigation expenses.”
The State Commission further directed that in case the OP failed to complete the flat in all respects within the period mentioned above, it shall refund the amount deposited with it by the complainant, i.e., Rs.29,70,000/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. from 30.08.2014 till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent booked a three-BHK flat priced at Rs.33,00,000/- with the appellant/OP builder at their project called, ‘SBP Homes’ at village Chhajumarja, District Mohali, Punjab and paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as registration deposit. An allotment letter dated 22.03.2014 for flat No. 183/8, tower No. 7, admeasuring 1540 sq. ft. of super area was issued in favour of the complainant by the builder. An agreement dated 22.03.2014 containing the necessary terms and conditions was signed between the parties, according to which, a sum of Rs.24,75,000/- was payable on 15.04.2014 and a further sum of Rs.3,30,000/- was payable on the date of delivery of possession, which was stated to be 30.08.2014. The complainant raised a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from the ICICI Bank Chandigarh and executed a tripartite agreement with the Bank and the Builder. The loan was to be disbursed directly by the Bank to the OP Builder and was to be repaid in 20 years by way of monthly instalments of Rs.24,375/- each. As per the complainant, he made all payments under the agreement to the Builder, and a total sum of Rs.29,70,000/- as stated in the details above, was paid by him. Vide notice dated 28.11.2014, the OP Builder asked him to take possession of the flat within 15 days on payment of a sum of Rs.5,11,998/-. The OP further raised a demand for Rs.3,85,000/- as maintenance charges, and Rs.41,528/- as society maintenance charges, when the flat was actually not complete. The complainant wrote a letter dated 08.12.2014 to the OP and asked them to deliver the flat, complete in all respects by December 2014, after removing the deficiencies as stated in that letter. However, the Builder was not able to remove the deficiencies as pointed out by the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Builder and seeking directions to them to pay interest @18% p.a. on the amount deposited by him from 30.08.2014 onwards till the date, the possession was delivered to him. He also demanded that if the OP failed to deliver the possession within one month of the complaint having been filed, it may refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of the deposit of the amount.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Builder by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which it was stated that the brochure issued by him was for illustrative purpose only and was not a legal offering. Moreover, it had been provided that the date of delivery of possession could be reasonably extended subject to ‘force majeure’ clause. The Builder also stated that there was shortage of building materi
