National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shivalik Infrastructure & Developers ... vs Adarsh Bhandari on 4 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 01/04/2015 in Complaint No. 78/2013 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. SHIVALIK INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. GHANSHAM SHARMA, DIRECTOR, S.C.O. 510, SECTOR-70, MOHALI, DISTRICT-MOHALI, PUNAJB ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ADARSH BHANDARI WIFE OF SHRI ASHOK BHANDARI, R/O. HOUSE NO. 43, VIKAS VIHAR, PHASE-II, FEROZEPUR CITY, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh B. Chhibber, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 04 Aug 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
Shivalik Infrastructure and Developer Pvt. Ltd., the Opposite Party (OP), floated a Scheme for allotment of residential flats under the name and style of "Paradise Apartments", Shivalik City, Kharar, Punjab.After retirement as Chief Matron (Medical), Divisional Railway Hospital, Ferozepur, Smt. Adarsh Bhandari, approached the OP, in February, 2011.She was taken to the site by its officials and at that time, 3-storeys of the apartments had already been partly constructed.She was informed that she can get a flat on the 5th floor, the construction of which was likely to be started in the near future and its possession would be delivered to her in April, 2013.
Both the parties entered into an agreement and Flat No. A-20 situated on the 5th floor with super area approximately 1225 sq.ft.was allotted to her. Its price was fixed at Rs.28,50,000/-, including service tax.She paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the price on 18.10.2011 and Rs13.25 lakhs on 28.10.2011 vide receipts, marked as Annexures C-1 & C-2, respectively. She was given further payment schedule.The first installment was paid on 13.01.2012 and second installment was paid on 14.04.2012, through cheques.
3. Being a vigilant purchaser, she started visiting the site, time and again, but no further head-way was made. She became apprehensive and immediately wrote a letter dated 09.07.2012 to the OP informing it about the non-progress of the construction. She sent the second protest letter on 08.12.2012. She also requested the OP to refund her amount, i.e., Rs.19.00 lakhs, along with interest, if the said apartment was not delivered to her, as per the agreement. As no construction was raised, she filed a complaint before the State Commission, on 08.08.2013, for refund of her amount with interest @ 12% p.a.
4. In its reply, the OP has admitted having received Rs.19.00 lakhs. The OP took the excuse that the funds for construction were to flow only from the flat buyers and due to world-wide recession in the market during the last 3-4 years, the buyers were not coming forward to invest in real estate. It further explained that even the persons who had booked the flats in the on-going projects, were not paying the installments, in time. It was contended that due to this, the delay had occurred. It was also submitted that the complainant has failed to pay the balance six installments. Again, construction work was duly started, but the same had to be stopped on account of non-payment of installments by the complainant and other buyers. The complainant did not give her 90 days' notice as per Clause 11.3 of the Buyers' Agreement.
5. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP to refund a sum of Rs.19.00 lakhs along with interest @ 9% pa., from the dates of deposit, till the date of payment. Besides, it awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
6. We have heard the counsel for the Appellant, at the time of admission of this case. He contended that they will hand-over the flat in the near future. He further contended that the complainant is not entitled to get the money back. He argued that this Commission should direct the complainant to deposit the entire installments so that the possession may be given to her.
7. We are unable to locate any substance in these faint arguments. The Appellant was asked, 'whether, the flat is still ready?'. He submitted that he is not aware and he will have to seek instructions from the Appellant. There is not even an iota of evidence, not even a pleading that the flat at 5th floor is ready and the possession can be given forthwith. The Appellant has enjoyed the sum of Rs.19.00 lakhs for the last 3-4 years. They did not seem to making much head-way with their project at the 5th floor. They have succeeded to feather their own nest, i.e., to make profits for themselves at the expenses of others. The Appellant has acted irresponsibly and tried to deceive the innocent consumers. They have adopted a Fabian policy (dilatory policy) for their own benefit. After receipt of the amount, they should have worked against the clock. Such like senseless delays go to exasperate the innocent buyers.
8. Again, notice for 90 days' was given, as letter dated 08.12.2012 clearly mentions to refund her amount and pay interest @ 12% p.a.
9. The State Commission has already been lenient in awarding interest @ 9% p.a., whereas the recent trend is that interest @ 18% p.a., is being awarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interest at the rate of 18% p.a., in K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos. 6730-31 of 2012, decided on 19.09.2012.
10. The First Appeal is frivolous and vexatious, as per Section 26 of the C.P. Act, 1986. Therefore, the same is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to the complainant, within 45 days' from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, after expiry of said 45 days, it will carry interest @ 18% p.a., till the date of realization. The amount, as ordered by the State Commission be paid, forthwith.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER