State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Splendor Landbase Ltd. vs Mamta Arora on 18 January, 2018
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 1504 of 2017 Date of Institution: 11.12.2017 Date of Decision: 18.01.2018 1. Splendor Landbase Limited, Registered Office 501-511, Splendor Forum, 5th Floor, Plot No.3, District Centre Jasola, New Delhi through authorized representative Sh. Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager, Sale and Marketing. 2. Splendor Landbase Limited, adjoining Ansal API Sushant City, Sector 19, Panipat through authorized representative Sh. Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager, Sale and Marketing. ....Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Mamta Arora wife of Sh. Shyam Arora, resident of Ward No.14, Bato Wala, Panipat. ....Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member. Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. Present: Shri T.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants. O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL) Splendor Landbase Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short, 'builder') have filed this appeal against the order dated October 24th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short 'District Forum') whereby it directed to refund Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till its payment and Rs.7700/- litigation expenses to Mamta Arora-complainant.
2. The complainant booked residential Apartment No.504, Tower A-4, 8th Floor, Splendor Grande, Sector 19, Panipat on January 21st, 2013. The complainant paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the builder. The basic sale price of the apartment was Rs.44,96,250/-. The possession of the apartment was to be handed over within 42 months. The builder did not start the construction. The complainant requested the builder to refund the deposited amount but to no avail. Hence, the complaint.
3. The developer, in its, written version, pleaded that the allotment of the apartment was provisional. The excavation work of Tower A-4 had already been commenced. The complainant was offered another apartment in Tower A-3. Remaining contents of the complaint were denied.
4. It is not in dispute that the apartment was booked in the year 2013. The builder failed to start the construction of Tower A-4, in which the complainant booked the apartment. As per Clause O6 of the Application Form (Annexure A-1), in case the builder fails to commence the construction of the project, the builder has to refund the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum calculated for the period of which such monies have been lying with the developer. This being so, the builder cannot deny to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. The builder has not been able to show any justifiable reason not to start the construction. The builder is trying to feather its own nest, that is, to make profit, for itself, at the cost of others. It will be travesty if the complainant is made to suffer for the deliberate, inaction and negligence of the builder. Thus the District Forum was justified in directing the builder to refund the amount to the complainant alongwith interest and litigation expenses. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed.
5. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.
Announced 18.01.2018 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President U.K