National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shrihari Gokhale & Anr. vs Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 31 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 2010 OF 2016 1. SHRIHARI GOKHALE & ANR. R/o RAKSHAK SOCIETY, AUNDH CAMP, PUNE-411027 2. VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE R/o 18, RAKSHAK SOCIETY, AUNDH CAMP, PUNE-411027 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. MARVEL OMEGA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 301-302, JEWEL TOWER, LANE NO-5, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE - 411001, MAHARASHTRA 2. MR. VISHWAJEET SUBHASH JHAVAR-CEO 301-302, JEWEL TOWER, LANE NO-5, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE - 411001, MAHARASHTRA ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Jitender Singh, Advocate Mr. R.C. Sharma, Advocate Dated : 31 May 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant booked a residential villa with the opposite party in a project namely 'Marvel Selva Ridge Estate' which the opposite party was to develop in Pune. The opposite party allotted villa No. 07 plus three covered car parking spaces plus open terrace to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.8,31,04,425/-. The parties then executed an agreement dated 22.3.2013, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the aforesaid transactions. In terms of Clause 5(b) of the said agreement, the possession of the villa was to be handed over to the complainant on or before 31.12.2014. The grievance of the complainant is that the possession of the villa has not been offered to the complainant, despite they having already paid Rs.8.14 crores to the opposite party. The complainants are therefore before this Commission, seeking refund of the aforesaid amount, along with compensation etc.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party, which had admitted the allotment made to the complainant as well as the amount received from them. It is stated in the written version filed by the opposite party that the complainant had suggested substantial extra work to be carried in the villa and in such circumstances, the delay in possession cannot be attributed to the opposite party. It is also alleged in the written version that the delay in completion of the project was due to the reasons that the Pune Municipal Corporation issued 'stop work notice' to the opposite party.
3. It is not in dispute that the some additional work was requested by the complainants to the opposite party. Vide email dated 30.12.2013 available on page 39-40 of the paper book, the complainants informed the opposite party that they wanted increase in the Master wardrobe area and therefore, an estimate for demolition of the current wall and construction of new wall as per the attached drawings may be given to them. Considering the nature of the aforesaid additional work, the delay of at best three months can be justified for executing the extra work sought by the complainants. As noted earlier, in terms of the agreement between the parties, the possession ought to have been delivered by 31.12.2014. If a grace period of three months is given to the opposite party, the possession ought to have been delivered by 31.03.2015. Even if grace period of six months is given, the possession ought to have been delivered by 30.6.2015. Initially, the complainants approached this Commission by way of a CC/1205/2015 which they withdrew on 22.8.2016 and the present complaint was filed on 05.12.2016. The possession of the villa had not been offered to the complainants even by the date this complaint was instituted.
The learned counsel for the opposite party states that as on today, the villa is not complete but they will be in a position to deliver the possession of the villa after six months. The learned counsel for the complainants on the other hand submits that the complainants are not willing to wait any more considering the abnormal delay of more than three years on the part of the opposite party not performing its contractual obligations and therefore, want refund of the entire amount paid by them, along with compensation etc.
4. He also submits that even at present the work is on standstill and there seems to be no reasonable possibility of the construction being complete even within next six months.
5. As far as the alleged delay on account of the Municipal Corporation of Pune having stopped the work is concerned, the complainants cannot be held responsible for the same. Obviously the Corporation would have stopped the work on account of some deviation on the part of the opposite party and therefore it is the opposite party which would be responsible for the delay on account of the Municipal Corporation of Pune stopping the work.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the complainants are entitled to refund of the entire amount paid by them to the opposite party. The learned counsel for the complainants states on instructions that the complainants are restricting their claim for compensation to simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
7. The complaint is therefore disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The opposite party shall refund the entire principal amount of Rs.8.14 crores to the complainants, along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till the date of refund.
(ii) The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.
(iii) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER