NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
M/s. Universal Infrastructure and Anr.—Appellants
versus
Binay Pal Singh and Anr.—Respondents
First Appeal No.1668 of 2019 (Against the Order dated 29/11/2018 in Complaint No. 383/2018 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 23.8.2019
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19—First Appeal—Complainants booked residential apartment - complainants made payment - appellant offering possession - complainants approached State Commission - complaint resisted—State Commission directed to refund the amount—No illegality in order by State Commission—Appeal devoid of any merit – dismissed. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainants / respondents booked a residential apartment with the appellant in a project, which the appellant was to develop in Sector 104 of Mohali. Flat No. 702, in the project namely ‘Taj Towers’ was allotted to the complainants, for a total consideration of Rs.59,85,000/-, which was later increased to Rs.65,10,000/-. The booking was made in May, 2012. The complainants made a payment of Rs.34,50,000/- to the appellant. The possession of the allotted flat was offered to the complainants vide letter dated 22.1.2016. The appellant, while offering possession also demanded a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the complainants towards interest for the delayed payments. The complainants informed the appellants vide letter dated 30.5.2016 that they were willing to pay the balance amount at the time of delivery of possession, but the appellants insisted on payment of the balance amount before delivering possession of the flat. The complainants thereafter, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount paid by them to the appellants with compensation etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the appellants, which admitted the allotment made to the complainants as well as the payments received from them. It was inter-alia stated in their written version that the complainants had defaulted in making payment and the possession was offered to them on 22.1.2016, subject to payment of the balance amount, including interest for the period the payment was delayed.
3. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.11.2018 directed as under:
“i) to refund the amount of Rs.34,50,000/- to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the various date of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants as well as litigation expenses.”
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of this Appeal.
4. This is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no particular time frame was committed by the appellants to the complainants for delivery of possession of the allotted flat and in any case, they had offered possession of the allotted flat to them within a reasonable time on 22.1.2016. It is however an admitted position that the requisite occupancy certificate in respect of the allotted flat has not yet been obtained by the appellant though, it claims to have applied for the issuance of the said occupancy certificate. This is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Inspection Committee had recommended the issuance of the occupancy certificate but the same has not been issued till date.
5. Section14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
“14. It is the responsibility of the promoter –
(i) In the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate form the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and (ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5.
(2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate.”
6. The State Commission has also relied upon the Notification dated 07.7.2015 issued by the Government
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.