Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA
A. S. Narang, Presiding Member and Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member
(The matter has been heard through virtual hearing) Seema Jain and Anr. —Complainants
versus
Parshvnath Developers Ltd. —Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.366 of 2017
Decided on 3.3.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Ashish Naik, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Complaints have been field for alleged delay in handing over possession of Flats – complainants have proved their case that they had booked a flat and made the payment of Rs.43,62,120/- to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not complete the construction in time and the complainants are entitled to get the refund of deposited amount along with interest – The opposite parties are directed to refund the sum of Rs.43,62,120/- to the complainants along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment. The interest would be compounded every year and will be added to the principal sum – Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainants as complainants obtained loan from financial institution. Opposite parties would pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite parties are further directed to pay this amount to the complainants within 30 days from today, failing which complainants would be entitled to get interest @ 18% p.a. for the defaulting period. The complaint stands allowed. [Para 8]
Result: Compliant allowed.
ORDER
A. S. Narang, Presiding Member.—Mrs. Seema Jain & another (Complainants) have filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & another (Opposite Parties).
2. The case of the complainants as set-up in the complaint, is that the opposite parties had floated a housing scheme by the name of “Chandigarh Royale Panchkula” in Sector-20, Panchkula. They had booked a flat with the opposite parties and paid Rs.8,70,100/- to the opposite parties for which the opposite parties had issued receipt dated 12.04.2011 (Ex.C-1). The authorized agent of the opposite parties had also forwarded transfer form and issued letter dated 12.04.2011 (Ex.C-2) to them. On 24.06.2011, the opposite parties had confirmed the transfer of rights in favour of the complainants. On 11.07.2011, flat buyer’s agreement (Ex.C-5) was executed for flat No.T8-2013, 2nd floor having an approx area of 1740 Sq. ft. The flat comprised three bed rooms, one drawing dining, one kitchen, three toilets and balconies. The opposite parties calculated the price of the flat at Rs.3250/- per sq. ft. and total cost of the flat was Rs.56,55,000/-. The complainant opted for construction-linked payment plan. The opposite parties agreed to complete the construction within a period of 36 months of commencement of construction with a grace period of 6 months. As per the agreement, the construction was to be completed by 21.01.2015. As per the demand letter of the opposite parties, the construction was started on 22.07.2011. Complainants alleged that the opposite parties kept on sending demand notices to them and they believing them, continued to make the payment. The complainants paid Rs.43,62,120/- to the opposite parties, details of which are as under:-
| S. No. | Date of Demand Notice | Date of Payment | Amount | Cheque No. |
| 1. | 12.04.2011 | 12.04.2011 | 8,70,100/- | 011327 & 011341 dated 06.04.2011 |
| 2. | 22.07.2011 | 18.08.2011 | 5,80,062/- | 011331 & 011344 dated 18.08.2011 |
| 3. | 05.10.2011 | 24.10.2011 | 5,80,061.62/- | 011335 dated 21.10.2011 & 011345 dated 24.10.2011 |
| 4. | 04.04.2012 | 17.04.2012 | 5,82,973.65/- | 197693 & 011360 dated 17.04.2012 |
| 5. | 17.07.2012 | 30.07.2012 | 5,82,973.60/- | 100062 & 199208 dated 29.07.2012 |
| 6. | 12.02.2012 | 27.02.2013 | 5,82,973.55/- | 199218 dated 27.02.2013 & 100073 dated 28.02.2013 |
| 7. | 13.08.2013 | 11.09.2013 | 5,82,953.50/- | 809215 dated 11.09.2013 |
Complainants have alleged that till date they have paid Rs.43,62,120/- to the opposite parties. They continued to visit the site to know the fate of construction, but there was no response from the opposite parties. Complainants lastly visited the site on 08.03.2017 and took the photographs, which show that the opposite parties had not completed the construction. On these facts, complainants filed the present complaint with the request to refund the amount of Rs.43,62,120/- deposited by them towards the flat in question alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of deposits till realization, to refund Rs.1,25,082/- paid to the financial institution towards the interest on loan amount, to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service etc. and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties were summoned and they appeared before this Commission. They did not file the written reply in time. Accordingly, vide order dated 18.09.2018, defense of opposite parties was struck off.
4. Complainants in their evidence have tendered affidavit of Shri Diwas Jain as (Ex.CA) alongwith documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-32).
5. We have heard Mr. Ashish Naik, counsel for the complainants and Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for the opposite parties. We have also perused the record.
6. Drawing our attention to the complaint and the evidence on the record,
