Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Member
Jatin Aggarwal – Complainant
versus
DLF Homes Panchkula
Private Limited – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.2041 of 2016
Decided on 5.1.2023
For the Complainant: Mr. Jatin Aggarwal, In person
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate, Ms. Sonia, Ms. Seema, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Transfer Deed - The complainant purchased the floor in December, 2013 as such the period of 24 months has to be counted from the date of his transfer deed.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Computation of Delay – From date of transfer deed - Complaint – Builder Buyer Agreement – Direction to issue a fresh demand letter - the agreement does not contain any clause for payment of delayed compensation. Clause-11(b) of the agreement provides for extension of period, for which, the construction was delayed for force majeure reasons- The complainant purchased the floor in December, 2013 as such the period of 24 months has to be counted from the date of his transfer deed – Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to issue a fresh demand letter in terms of agreement, adjusting delayed compensation in the form of interest @6% per annum on the deposit of the complainant from January, 2016 till 31.05.2017. [Paras 8,9].
Result: Compliant is partly allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Jatin Aggarwal, the complainant, in person and Mr. Pravin Bahadur, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. Jatin Aggarwal has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the floor, along with delayed compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum, on the deposit of the complainant, from December, 2014 till the date of handing over possession, or in alternative refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of actual payment, (ii) pay Rs.800000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) pay Rs.100000/-, as litigation cost; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The complainant stated that DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited (the opposite party) was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The opposite party launched a group housing project, in the name of “DLF Valley” at village Bhagwanpur, Kalka, District Panchkula, Gurgaon, in the year 2011 and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Sadhna Rathee (predecessor in interest of the complainant), booked an Independent Floor on 16.02.2011 and deposited booking amount of Rs.600000/-. The opposite party allotted Unit no.-VF-A-1/7-First Floor, saleable area 2560 sq.ft., basic sale price of Rs.7499519.99 and executed Independent Floor Buyer’s Agreement in her favour on 25.12.2012. Sadhna Rathee transferred her right in aforesaid unit to Deepak Garg on 29.06.2013. Deepak Garg transferred his right in aforesaid unit to the complainant in December, 2013. Payment Plan was “construction link payment plan”. As per demand, the complainant and his predecessors-in-interest deposited total amount of Rs.8831968/- till 12.11.2016. Clause-11(a) of the agreement provides that the construction will be completed within 24 months from the date of agreement subject to timely payment of the instalments and force majeure reasons. Although due date of possession expired but the opposite party neither offered possession nor paid delayed compensation. The complainant vide email and letter sent through courier dated 29.08.2016, inquired about possession and demanded delayed compensation. The opposite party issued demand notice dated 09.11.2016, for Rs.993376.94. The construction was not near completion, the opposite party instead of paying delayed compensation, was demanding further amount as such the complaint was filed on 07.12.2016, for refund of the money with interest, alleging deficiency in service. Later on the complainant filed IA/8118/2021, for amending prayer clause, which was allowed on 21.07.2022 and relief for possession was also added.
4. The opposite party filed its written reply on 17.11.2017 and contested the matter. The opposite party did not dispute, booking of the floor, allotment of the floor, deposits made by the complainant and his predecessors. The opposite stated that the complainant has concealed material fact that he was not an allottee of the opposite party rather a transferee from open market in December, 2013. At the time of purchasing the floor, the complainant very well knew that the construction had been delayed. Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 06.04.2010, passed in CWP No. 6230 of 2010 Tara Chand Vs. M/s. DLF Homes Panchkula (P) Ltd., directed the opposite party to maintain status quo and not to create third party interest over the project land. One Ravindra Singh filed CWP No.6155 of 2010, challenging land acquisition, which was dismissed by High Court. Ravindra Singh filed SLP (C) No.21786-21788 of 2010, in which, Supreme Court, vide order dated 19.04.2012, restrained the opposite party from raising any construction, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2012. Layout plan of the pro
