IMPORTANT POINT
Reasonable Compensation – In a case of an unreasonable delay in offering possession of the allotted flat, the consumer cannot be compelled to accept possession at a belated stage and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him to the builder with compensation, the Complainants are entitled for refund of the money alongwith reasonable compensation in the form of interest @9% p.a. on the entire deposited amount.

ORDER

The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by Madhvi Sharma and Sh. Pooran Mal Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) before the State Commission was allowed and the M/s. Narayan Builders & Developers (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Builder) was directed to refund the money alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit as the Appellant Builder was also charging the same rate of interest as per condition no. 2.12 of the Agreement. The Appellant Builder was also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.40,000/- to the Complainants within one month failing which it would carry interest @9% from the date of the Order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant Builder launched a Group Housing Project in the name and style of “Urbana Jewells” (hereinafter referred to as the Project) located near Guhana Mandi, Village Madrampura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. Allured by the advertisements and assurances made by the Sales Representatives of the Appellant Builder, Pooran Mal Sharma and Vidya Sharma booked a flat in the said Project on 26.7.2007 by paying a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. Flat No. 806 in Tower B was allotted. Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 07.04.2008. As Vidya Sharma died the name of Madhvi Sharma was substituted in the name of Vidya Sharma on 29.4.2011 and to enter the name of Madhvi Sharma the Complainant sent the Agreement to the Appellant Builder and new Agreement was sent by the Complainants to the Appellant on 04.06.2011, who after signing the same returned to the Appellant Builder on 04.06.2011. It was alleged that in the new Agreement the cost and super built area of the flat is inflated and as area of the flat is inflated preferential location charges were also increased. Rs.1,75,000/- were charged illegally for parking. Sub-standard material was used. As per terms of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be offered within 36 + 6 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, i.e., by 04.12.2014. It was alleged that despite making payments of Rs.22,97,806/- on different dates, the Appellant Builder failed to deliver the possession of the flat within stipulated period. However, vide letter dated 09.03.2016 the Appellant Builder offered possession of the Flat and asked the Complainants to clear the outstanding dues but the Complainants objected the demand made by the Appellant Builder mainly in the head of car parking charges and super built up area. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Builder, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking possession of the Flat alongwith compensation or alternatively refund of the money with reasonable interest, compensation and cost of proceedings.

3. The Appellant Builder contested the Complaint before the State Commission by submitting that the earlier complaint was filed which was dismissed in non-prosecution and appeal was also dismissed as withdrawn hence, second complaint is not maintainable. No new flat buyer agreement was entered and both the agreements were similar; the Complainant has not made payment demanded vide Offer of Possession Letter dated 09.03.2016. They are ready to give possession but after making payment of the outstanding dues in terms of Offer of Possession letter dated 09.03.2016. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission allowed the Complaint in aforementioned terms by observing as under:—

“There is no dispute about the fact that earlier the complainants have submitted a complaint which was dismissed in non-prosecution and appeal has also been withdrawn but complainant has prayed by way of application to admit the second complai