State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudhakar Chopra & Anr. vs Nbcc Ltd. on 24 November, 2017
Daily Order IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments : 24.11.17 Date of Decision : 05.12.17 Complaint No.1819/2017 IN THE MATTER OF: Shri Sudhakar Chopra M -244, Sector-25 Jalvayu Vihar NOIDA- 201 301. Priyanka Chopra D/o Sudhakar Chopra M - 244, Sector -25 Jalvayu Vihar NOIDA - 201 301. .... Complainants Versus NBCC Ltd. (Through its Chairman and Managing Director/Authorised Officer NBCC Bhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi- 110 003. .....Opposite Party CORAM HON'BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) 1.
Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgement? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) JUDGEMENT
The present complaint for directions to OP to refund Rs. 2,30,040/- deducted while refunding the amount on withdrawal of complainant from the scheme, pay Rs. 25,48,502/- as interest @ 15% on amounts paid by them for allotment of flat, pay interest pendente lite @ 24% per annum, pay cost of litigation as Rs. 1,00,000/-, pay Rs. 52,00,000/- as compensation for escalation of cost of similar flat in Gurugaon, pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental torture, agony, harassment, pay Rs. 2,24,000/- towards monitory losses suffered by them for hiring accommodation from the period from promised date till withdrawal from the scheme @14,950/- for 15 months from May, 2015 to July 2016.
2. In nutshell the case of the complainant is that they booked one type B flat in Greenview Apartments in Sector 37D, Gurgaon in the year 2011. In draw of lots held on 17.10.12 they were allotted flat in Tower 'C' on 13th Floor. The flats were to be constructed within 30 months i.e. by 17.04.15. Cost of the flat was Rs. 75,14,715/-. Complainant arranged housing loan of Rs. 44,75,000/- from SBI in the name of complainant No. 2. In response to application under RTI Act the OP informed that expected date of handing over possession was in mid 2016 which was more than one year from the promised date of compensation.
2. Having developed doubts about the ability of OP to complete project by mid of 2016 the complainant applied for withdrawal from the scheme vide letter dated 25.03.16. Complainants received letter dated 25.04.16 sending various documents including affidavit mentioning account number where amount was to be refunded. The said letter also stated that cancellation of allotment would be as per terms and conditions of clause 23 of the application form., Complainants wrote e-mail dated 06.05.16 stating that in view of promulgation of Real Estate(Regulation and Development Act, 2016) clause 23 would be applicable only to the extent it does not violate RERA. Complainant No. 1 submitted all documents o 17.05.16 alongwith an affidavit prepared by him. Refund after some deductions was made only on 13.07.16. OP deducted Rs.2,30,040/- from total amount of Rs. 59,17,551/-. Complainant No. 1 registered the grievance on line with Govt. of India portal Central Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System. In response to the same OP informed that Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deducted from the amount paid by complainant, service charge of Rs. 30,000/- has been levied on the said amount.
3. I have gone through the material on record and heard for the purpose of admission. Clause No. 23 (b) (iv) dealing with withdrawal of application of booking provides that OP was entitled to deduct Rs. 2,00,000/- of the application was moved beyond 75 days from the date of draw of lots. The said clause appears on page 36 of the complaint file. Undisputedly the complainant moved an application after 75 days from the date of draw of lots. Thus OP was within its right to deduct Rs. 2,00,000/- plus services charges.
4. The plea of the complainant that clause 23 of agreement has to be read with RERA is not tenable. Reason being that RERA was enacted in 2016 whereas the agreement was executed on 28.06.12. RERA Act have prospective application and not retrospective application.
5. Law regarding agreement is that parties are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement. in this regard reference can made to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharati Knitting Company II (1996) CPJ 25.
Complaint is dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
(O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)