National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Emrging India Housing Corporation ... vs Avtar Kaur Bains on 8 March, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 29/08/2016 in Complaint No. 288/2016 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. M/S. EMRGING INDIA HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, CORPORATE OFFICE AT: 46-47, FIRST FLOOR, SECTOR-9-D, NEAR MATTKA CHOWK, MADHYA MARG, CHANDIGARH-110009 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AVTAR KAUR BAINS W/O. S. JASWANT SINGH BAINS, R/OL. NAYAGAON, DISTRICT-SAS NAGAR, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Devesh Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, CEO of Appellant Co. For the Respondent :
Dated : 08 Mar 2017 ORDER 1. Delay condoned.
2. By this First Appeal, a Real Estate Developer, namely, M/s Emerging Valley Private Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, questions the correctness and legality of the order dated 29.08.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. 288 of 2016. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not delivery the plot of land, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, in the project, christened as Emerging Valley, situated in Mohali, Punjab, by the stipulated date i.e. by December, 2015, the State Commission has issued the following directions to the Appellant:
"i) To refund the amount of Rs.27.80 lacs, to the complainant, along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
iv) The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr. nos. (i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr. no. (i) shall carry penal interest @ 15% p.a., instead of @ 12%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @ 12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr. nos. (ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization."
3. In deference to our order dated 01.02.2017, Mr. Harminder Singh, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Appellant Company, is present in person.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that since the possession of the plot was offered to the Complainant in mid-2015, the State Commission was not justified in issuing the afore-noted directions. On a pointed query by us as to whether the plot in question was fully developed, as stipulated in the letter of allotment, when it was allegedly offered in 2015, the said CEO has candidly admitted that at that point of time some development work was incomplete. One of the factors, which has weighed with the State Commission in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in delivering the possession of the plot by the scheduled time, is that when the project was launched and the plot was sold to the Complainant in the year 2012, even the Change in Land User (CLU) Certificate and other necessary permissions had not been obtained by the Appellant. The fact is not disputed by the CEO.
4. In view of the afore-stated admitted factual position, particularly the fact that the plot was not fully developed by the committed time of delivery in terms of letter of allotment letter dated 12.10.2013, the Complainant was under no obligation to take its possession, which is now sought to be offered, and, thus, the State Commission was fully justified in directing refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant, between the period 13.04.2012 and 20.06.2014. We may note that against the total sale consideration of ₹31,00,000/-, by 20.06.2014 the Appellant Company had already received a sum of ₹27,80,000/- from the Complainant. Bearing in mind the fact that the Appellant Company had utilized the said funds for over five years, the award of interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit cannot be said to be unreasonable.
5. For the aforegoing reasons, we do not find any illegality, legal or factual, in the impugned order. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed in limine accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER