State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amit Kumar Gupta vs Kdp Infrastricture Pvt Ltd on 2 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Complaint Case No. CC/259/2016 1. Amit Kumar Gupta New Delhi New Delhi ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. KDP Infrastricture Pvt Ltd New Delhi New Delhi ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT For the Complainant: For the Opp. Party: Dated : 02 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW COMPLAINT NO. 195 OF 2016 Col. Harendra Singh S/o Diwan Singh R/o 78/C, GH-01 Sector 100, Noida-201304 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 196 OF 2016 Vinay Verma S/o Vinod Kumar R/o Flat No.655, Tower 14 River Heights Raj Nagar Extension Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 197 OF 2016 Rohit Kandwal S/o Lt Basant Lal Kandwal R/o D-201, KDP Grand Savanna Raj Nagar Ext.
Ghaziabad-201001 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party :2: COMPLAINT NO. 198 OF 2016 Mukesh Agrawal S/o Ramavatar Agrawal R/o 9/212, 2nd Floor DDA Flat Madangir, New Delhi 110062 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 256 OF 2016 Ajay Kumar Jha S/o Jagdanand Jha R/o D-36, Ayudh Vihar CGHS, Plot No. 3 Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi.
... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 257 OF 2016 Prem Kumar Singh S/o Chandra Bhan Singh R/o D-II 1521, Sanjay Colony Sec 23, 22 Ft Road, Street No.6 Faridabad- 121005 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 258 OF 2016 Prabhakar Vardhan S/o Sobaran Lal Dohare R/o D-503, KDP Grand Savanna Raj Nagar Extn., Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Complainant :3: Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 259 OF 2016 Amit Kumar Gupta S/o Lt. Shri Shyam Lal Gupta R/o 81-C, LIG Flats Rampura New Delhi-110035 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 260 OF 2016 Gomti Anil W/o D. Anil Kumar R/o Qtr 61, Type 3, Sector 1 Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi 110049 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 261 OF 2016 Narendra Prasad S/o t. Bhubaneshwar Prasad R/o E-144, 1st Floor, Gali No.5 Pandav Nagar, Mayur Vihar Ph-I, New Delhi 110091 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party :4: COMPLAINT NO. 262 OF 2016 Atul Kumar, S/o Vikas Babu R/o 9127, Block-9 Prestige Shantiniketan Whitefield, Bangalore KA-560066 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 263 OF 2016 Divyajot Singh, S/o Ranjit Singh R/o 62-B, Pocket 3, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi-110091 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 264 OF 2016 Dilmohan Srivastava S/o H P Srivastava R/o SH-183, Shastri Nagar Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 265 OF 2016 Badal Kumar Choudhary S/o Bijay Kumar Choudhary R/o Flat 598, Radhika Appartment Pocket-I, Sector 14 Dwarka, New Delhi-110078 ... Complainant :5: Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 266 OF 2016 Sunil Kumar Prasad S/o Jagnath Prasad Srivastava R/o E-905, KDP Grand Savanna Raj Nagar Ext.
Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 267 OF 2016 Sudesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Lt. Shri Sukhlal Singh R/o H. No. 36, Chaudhary Charan Singh Enclave Near Radheyshyam Park Ghaziabad, U.P. ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 268 OF 2016 Joydeep Lahiri S/o Nitish lahiri R/o Flat No.102, No.14 Basava Residency 2nd Main, Arakere Bannerghatta Road Bangalore 560076 ... Complainant :6: Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party COMPLAINT NO. 269 OF 2016 Tarun Garg S/o Ashok Kumar Garg R/o Flat No. 7028, Tower-2, E1 GH7, Crossing Republic Ghaziabad-201010 ... Complainant Versus M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors UB-19, Antriksh Bhawan K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 ....Opposite Party BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT For the Complainant : Sri Brijendra Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sri R K Mishra, Advocate.
Dated : 16-02-2018 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT Above complaints have been filed against same opposite parties namely M/s K. D. P. Infrastructure Private Limited under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with similar following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be graciously pleased to grant the following reliefs amongst others to the complainant.
Direct the opposite party to handover the actual possession of the flats to the complainants herein within a stipulated time frame as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Commission. Direct the respondent to make payment of interest @ 24% per annum on the amount received by the opposite party from the complainants from the date of providing actual :7: possession with all the promised amenities as promised i.e. March 2012 till the period when the opposite party actually hand over the possession of the flats to the respective complainant.
Direct the respondent to make payment of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) as to the amount of damage caused to the complainants by the opposite party for causing harassment, mental pain, agony, depression, frustration and in the interest of justice; Award the compensation amount to Rs.2,50,000/- for the costs and expenses incurred by the complainants on litigation for bringing this complaint before this Hon'ble Forum; Award litigation costs against the respondent and in favour of the complainant; Pass any order/s and directions as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in favour of the complainant firm and as against the respondents in the interest of justice.
Each complainant of above complaints is allottee of opposite parties and opposite parties have issued allotment letter in favour of each complainant for sale of flat in its Grand Savanna Project.
All complaints have been filed on similar facts against same opposite parties with same prayers. Therefore, all complaints are being decided by a common judgment.
In each complaint it is alleged by complainant that he has paid 95% of sale consideration in terms of allotment letter. But opposite parties have not completed construction with finishing work and delayed delivery of possession. Consequently allottees approached opposite parties with request to deliver possession and a meeting was held on 10-10-2015. Opposite parties agreed to handover possession in July, 2016 through minutes of said meeting dated 10-10-2015 but failed to handover possession to allottees on agreed date.
It has been contended in each complaint that the allotment letter is vague and no time has been stipulated for delivery of possession. As such :8: delivery of possession should be made within reasonable time. But after expiry of considerable long time opposite parties have failed to deliver possession to the allottees and did not honour assurance given in meeting dated 10-10-2015.Consequently present complaints have been filed before State Commission.
Details of allotment including basic sale price and amount paid are given below for each complaint separately.
Sl.No. Complaint No. Complainant's Name Flat No. Date of Allotment Total Consideration(Excluding Service Tax Amount paid till date including service tax
01. 195/2016 Col.(Retd.) Harendra Singh I-706 5-2-2012 27,67,500 27,46,000
02. 196/2016 Vinay Verma I-203 21-10-2011 27,50,000 26,35,624
03. 197/2016 Rohit Kandwal I-505 15-01-2012 30,26,958 28,75,349
04. 198/2016 Mukesh Agrawal I-806 14-03-2013 38,56,250/-
38,17,520
05. 256/2016 Ajay Kumar Jha I-1002 04-12-2011 27,50,000 28,61,866
06. 257/2016 Prem Kumar Singh I-902 15-12-2012 27,50,000 26,67,000
07. 258/2016 Prabhakar Vardhan I-1004 04-03-2012 29,06,250 28,46,220
08. 259/2016 Amit Kumar Gupta I-201 15-12-2012 20,68,750 20,19,771
09. 260/2016 Gomathi Anil Kumar I-906 28-12-2012 30,62,155 29,08,433
10. 261/2016 Narendra Prasad I-705 24-12-2011 27,50,000 26,25,985
11. 262/2016 Atul Kumar I-502 17-11-2011 29,37,701 27,90,816
12. 263/2016 Divyajot Singh I-604 04-02-2012 29,50,000 29,50,000
13. 264/2016 Dilmohan Srivastava I-401 02-02-2012 30,09,101 28,57,785
14. 265/2016 Badal Kumar Choudhary I-504 03-01-2012 29,06,000 28,50,000
15. 266/2016 Sunil Kumar Prasad I-405 05-12-2011 28,09,802 26,69,312
16. 267/2016 Sudesh Kumar Chauhan I-801 14-01-2012 29,06,250 29,06,250
17. 268/2016 Joydeep Lahiri I-1106 19-11-2012 34,00,000 33,70,687
18. 269/2016 Tarun Garg I-G06 21-09-2012 38,54,752 35,90,584 Opposite parties have filed written statements separately in each :9: complaint wherein allotment alleged by each complainant has been admitted. The payment alleged to have been made by each complainant has also been accepted subject to further averment that the following amount shown below against name of each complainant is due against him.
In written statement it has been further stated by opposite parties that the flats are ready and opposite parties are ready to deliver physical possession to respective complainant on payment of amount due with stamp duty for execution of sale deed.
The amount due against each complainant as stated in written statement filed by opposite parties is given below.
Sl.No. Complaint No. Complainant's Name Amount due
01. 195/2016 Col.(Retd.) Harendra Singh 1,19,424/-
02. 196/2016 Vinay Verma 1,91,309/-
03. 197/2016 Rohit Kandwal 2,30,805/-
04. 198/2016 Mukesh Aggarwal 2,34,168/-
05. 256/2016 Ajay Kumar Jha 2,40,073/-
06. 257/2016 Prem Kumar Singh 1,89,845/-
07. 258/2016 Prabhakar Vardhan 2,52,715/-
08. 259/2016 Amit Kumar Gupta 1,41,887/-
09. 260/2016 Gomathi Anil Kumar 2,15,528/-
10. 261/2016 Narendra Prasad 2,63,987/-
11. 262/2016 Atul Kumar 3,05,646/-
12. 263/2016 Divyajot Singh 5,09,359/-
13. 264/2016 Dilmohan Srivastava 2,72,056/-
14. 265/2016 Badal Kumar Choudhary 2,19,331/-
15. 266/2016 Sunil Kumar Prasad 1,89,264/-
16. 267/2016 Sudesh Kumar Chauhan 1,95,082/-
17. 268/2016 Joydeep Lahiri 1,80,060/-
18. 269/2016 Tarun Garg 2,86,932/-
In each complaint the complainant as well as opposite parties have filed affidavits with annexures.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through records.
After having gone through pleadings of parties it is clear that :10: allotment of flat alleged as well as payment alleged to have been made by each complainant is not disputed. The amount alleged to be due against each complainant is also not disputed. Allotment letter has been issued in year 2012 and 95% of basic sale price has been deposited by each allottee in terms of allotment letter but possession of flat has not been delivered till now. In written statement opposite parties have expressed their readiness to handover possession of flat on payment of amount due and stamp for sale deed. Therefore, considering all facts and circumstances of the case it appears just to direct opposite parties to handover possession of flat to respective allottee within three months on payment of amount due in terms of allotment letter with stamp charges for registration of sale deed and to execute sale deed within said period. If the opposite parties fail to comply this direction within stipulated period they shall pay interest to each complainant on amount deposited by him at the rate of 9 percent per annum for delayed delivery of possession from the date of expiry of said three months till date of delivery of possession within six months. The interest shall be paid monthly by opposite parties to respective complainant. After expiry of this six months the rate of interest should be fixed 12% per annum in case delivery of possession is not made to respective complainant.
In view of above each complaint mentioned above is allowed partly and opposite parties are directed to handover possession of flat to respective allottee within three months from the date of this judgment, on payment of amount due in terms of attotment letter with stamp charges for registration of sale deed and to execute sale deed within said period failing which opposite parties shall pay interest to each complainant on amount deposited by him at the rate of 9 percent per annum for delayed delivery of possession from the date of expiry of above three months till date of delivery of possession within six months. After expiry of six months the rate of interest shall be 12 percent per annum and opposite parties shall pay interest to respective complainant on amount deposited by him at this rate till delivery of possession to respective complainant.
Interest awarded above shall be paid monthly.
Opposite parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to each complainant :11: separately.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
This judgment shall be placed in the record of Complaint Case No. 195/2016 with its copy to be laid on the record of other 17 complaints.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT