National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahua Pal & Anr. vs M/S. Ireo Fiveriver Private Ltd. & 10 ... on 27 November, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 1018 OF 2017 1. MAHUA PAL & ANR. W/o. Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, R/o. H.No. 141, Sector 24-A, Chandigarh-160023. 2. Sh. Amrit Pal Singh S/o. Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o. H.No. 141, Sector 24-A, Chandigarh - 160023. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/S. IREO FIVERIVER PRIVATE LTD. & 10 ORS. Through Its DirectorHaving Its Registered Office at: 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 2. Magnolia Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Having Its Registered office at 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015 3. Ascent Township Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 4. M/s. Iris Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., A-11, 1st Floor, Neeti Bagh New Delhi - 110 049. 5. M/s. Prong Probuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director/Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 6. M/s. Veld Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director/Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 7. M/s. Magma Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 8. M/s. Soul Mates Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Having its Registered Office at 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 9. M/s. Era Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Managing Director/Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 10. M/s. Swapn Ghar Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, 305, 3rd Floor, Kanchan House Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi - 110 015. 11. M/s. Mogul Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Having its Registered Office at C-4, 1st Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110 017. ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Savinder S Gill, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Saumyen Das, Advocate Dated : 27 Nov 2018 ORDER Final arguments are heard in this matter.
The admitted facts of the case are that complainants vide their application dated 07.01.2012 applied for allotment of a residential plot in the project to be developed by the opposite party in the name and style of 'IREO FIVERIVER' situated at 3,4 and 4A, Pinjore-Kalka, Urban Complex, Distt. Panchkula. The complainants paid a sum of Rs.8,65,000/- towards the booking amount. The payment schedule was construction linked. On 10.01.2012 complainants were allotted Type A, Plot No.R-67 measuring 250.50 sq. yds and plot-buyer's agreement was executed between the parties at Chandigarh on 13.02.2012. The stipulated date of possession was 12.08.2015. However, the opposite parties failed to hand over possession of the plot in terms of the agreement.
2. Thereafter, present complaint has been filed. Besides the above facts, it is also alleged that total sale consideration of the subject plot was Rs.1,12,76,550/- and they had paid total sum of Rs.87,57,800/-. The plot was allotted in the joint name of the complainants. It is further submitted that sale price also included the basic sale price of Rs.86,45,355/-, EDC and IDC amounting to Rs. 13,78,245/-, preferential location charges of Rs.3,75,885 and IFMS of Rs.87,706/-. It is contended that despite the passing of three years from the due date, the opposite parties have failed to hand over possession of the plot, al-though the complainants have been regularly making the payments .
3. The opposite parties have filed one common written version, wherein they have raised several preliminary objections including the issue of jurisdiction of this Forum. However, during the course of arguments, this issue is not pressed. The main contention was that development of the plot was delayed for the reasons beyond their control. It is submitted that they booked the plots pursuant to the grant of license no.28 of 23.03.2010 for developing the plots. The State of Haryana, thereafter, changed the Sectoral Road Circulation Plan of Sectors-1 to 5 of Pinjore-Kalka, Urban Complex, Haryana on 22.11.2011 and required them to submit the revised lay out plan and served notice dated 09.12.2011 upon the opposite party. The said revised lay-out plan which was submitted was approved by the State of Haryana on 14.10.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP which was filed by the land owners stayed the development of the said land and stay order remained in force till 12.12.2012. This SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12..12.2012. It is, however, contended that delay had occurred on account of delay in grant of environment certificate by the concerned authority. It is submitted that opposite party had applied for environmental clearance on 18.04.2012 but it was granted only on 15.04.2014. Since they were required to obtain renewal of the Wild Life Clearance, they also applied for the same and it was given to them only on 24.04.2015. The NOC from Irrigation Department which was insisted upon by the Town and Country Planning, Department of Haryana was granted only on 20.03.2013. The plots also could not be developed because there was no access to the project since HUDA had not constructed the sectoral roads. The sectoral road was to be constructed by DTCP. It is submitted that despite all these constraints, the opposite parties had been able to start the development of the project on 13.04.2015. It is further contended that since the project was near the Kaushalya Dam, the Directorate of Country and Planning, Haryana issued a restrained order vide letter dated 16.03.2011 that no earthwork or construction work of any kind by undertaken at the site till the approval of the zoning plan. Thereafter, the opposite party had started follow up with the Irrigation Department for obtaining NOC. It is contended and argued that builders / colonizers could not fulfill the task of account of these reasons which were beyond their control.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the complainants that in Consumer Complaint No.794 of 2017, this Commission in respect of same project had considered all these objections which have been raised by the opposite parties and all the contentions have been rejected and it was held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is submitted that the said order passed in above said consumer complaint has not been challenged and findings on all these issues have also become final and thus relevant and binding. It is prayed that similar order be passed in this complaint as well. This contention is not controverted by the counsel for the opposite parties.
5. I have perused the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Commission in Consumer Case No. 794 of 2017 titled Gurmeet Kaur Saini and Ireo Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. decided on 27.03.2018. I am satisfied that findings of the Coordinate Bench in Gurmeet Kaur's case ( supra) is on the identical facts and in respect of same project., The findings in that case are binding since the order has attained finality. For the reasons recorded in the said judgment, I pass the similar order and issue following directions to the opposite parties:
a. The opposite parties shall pay the entire deposited amount of Rs.87,57,800/- to the complainants alongwith compensation in the form of Simple Interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payments till the date of full refund;
b. The opposite parties shall pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants;
c. The payment in terms of this order shall be paid within three months from today.
With these directions, the complaint stands disposed off.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER