National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Raj Hans Towers (P) Limited vs Anuradha Mishra on 5 July, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 23/04/2018 in Complaint No. 15/2008 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. RAJ HANS TOWERS (P) LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M-33 SECOND FLOOR GREATER KAILASH PART-I, NEW DELHI 110048 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ANURADHA MISHRA W/O. DR ARVIND MISHRA R/O.1/94 VIRAM KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Satyendra Kr. Srivastav, Advocate for Mr. Piyush Diwidi, Caveator
Dated : 05 Jul 2018 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)
The complainant/respondent booked a residential flat with the appellant in a project, namely, 'Rajhans Premier Apartment'. Flat No.604 in Block - C, admeasuring 3775 sq.ft. was allotted to the complainant for a basic price of Rs.20,50,000/-. The possession of the flat was to be delivered by December 2006. The possession, however, was not delivered despite the complainant having paid Rs.21,50,000/- to the opposite party after taking loan from ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. It was also stipulated in the agreement between the parties that in the event of delay, the builder will pay Rs.5 per sq.ft. per month as penalty for the delayed period. Being aggrieved from the failure of the builder to deliver possession, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint. She also alleged that an excess amount of Rs.335932/- has been charged from her. Compensation for mental agony caused to her by the appellant as also rental for the period the possession was delayed were also sought.
2. The appellant appeared before the State Commission but did not file any written version. The order passed by the State Commission shows that the Counsel representing the appellant sought three months to execute the sale deed of the flat in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the State Commission directed the appellant to execute the sale deed of the flat within three weeks and hand over its possession to the complainant. Later on, the complainant was required to deposit Rs.335932/- before the execution of the sale deed.
3. The State Commission held that the appellant had charged an excess amount of Rs.224182/- from the complainant. Therefore, it directed refund of the aforesaid amount alongwith a sum of Rs.103125/- as compensation for the delay in delivery of possession. The compensation was calculated @ Rs.5 per sq.ft. per month as per the agreement between the parties. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her. The cost of litigation was quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission.
5. It is not in dispute that the possession was to be delivered by December 2006. It is also not in dispute that the said possession has been delivered only during pendency of the consumer complaint before the State Commission. Therefore, the direction for payment of compensation at the agreed rate of Rs.5 per sq.ft. per month for the period of delay cannot be faulted with and was eminently justified.
6. As regards, the case of the appellant that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.335932/- to it, no evidence was led and in fact could not have been led since no written version had been filed by the appellant before the State Commission. The State Commission, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.111750/- towards cost of additional area admeasuring 75 sq.ft. After deducting the aforesaid amount from Rs.335932/-, the excess amount of Rs.224182/- was directed to be refunded to the complainant. Therefore, I find no justification for denying the aforesaid amount of Rs.224182/- to the complainant the same being the excess amount charged from her, before delivery of possession of the flat to her.
7. The State Commission also noticed that the flat at the time it was delivered to the complainant had several defects in it. It was noted by the State Commission that the appellant had filed its letter dated 19.7.2010 stated that most of the points were rectified or not appropriately mentioned meaning thereby that there were defects which were allegedly rectified by the appellant. The State Commission in this regard also perused the photographs which the complainant produced before it and which revealed the defects in the construction of the flat.
8. As far as the direction for payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment of the complainant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the compensation for the delay in delivery of possession of the flat was only Rs.5 per sq.ft. per month.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER