State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shivann Ramnath Cadan & Another vs Avant Housing & Developments Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 1 September, 2015
1
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANAJI - GOA
C.C. No. 06/2015
1. Mrs. Shivann Ramnath Cadan,
2. Mr. Malur Aji Narayan,
Both residents of 101 Grand Bay
Apartments, near Mehboob studios,
17 Hill Road, Bandra (W),
Mumbai 400050. .....Complainants
v/s.
1. Avant Housing & Developments Pvt. Ltd.,
A company incorporated under Companies Act,
1956, having its registered office at D-25,
Ansal Villa Farms, Satbari, New Delhi - 110030,
Through its Managing Director.
2. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Executive Director,
E-2, 59 NandNagri,
Near Gagan Cinema,
New Delhi-110093.
3. Pearl Valley Infrastructure & Developments Pvt. Ltd.,
E-2, 59 NandNagri,
Near Gagan Cinema,
New Delhi-110093.
4. Mr. Ashwin Handa, Director,
F-12, First Floor Global Arcade,
Sikenderpur
Mehrauli Road Gurgaon - 122001.
5. Mr. Niketan Handa, Director,
F-12, First Floor Global Arcade,
Sikenderpur
Mehrauli Road Gurgaon - 122001. ......OPs
Complainants are represented by Adv. Shri. N.G. Kamat.
OPs exparte.
2
Coram: Shri Justice N. A. Britto, President
Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav, Member
Dated: 01/09/2015
ORDER
[Per Justice Shri. N. A. Britto, President] By this consumer complaint, the complainants seek refund of Rs. 71,75,000/- paid by them towards the booking of a River Villa of built up area of about 300-350 sq. yards against a discounted price of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- in the project of the OPs known as Revata Waterfront at Porvorim i.e. in survey No. 47/1-A of village Salvador-do-Mundo and other consequential reliefs.
2. The OP No. 1 is a registered Company of which OP No. 2, 4 and 5 are the directors. OP No. 3 is stated to be an Associate Company of OP No. 1 and it was stated that OP No. 1 had entered into an agreement with the said Associate Company, OP No. 3, for the development, promotion/marketing, construction and receipt of sales and OP No. 3, was to enter into an agreement with the complainants for the sale of the said villa.
3. First notice of the complaint was sent to OP No. 1 and it was returned unserved. Then notice to OP No. 4 sent was also returned unserved. Thereafter notices were sent to OP Nos. 1 and 2 at given addresses. These notices also were returned unserved with postal remark that no such persons resided at the given addresses. OP Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were then served by email on or about 30/4/15 but none of them appeared on 1/6/15. A private notice was also sent to OP Nos. 1, 4 and 5 but they did not respond to the same. As a result on 9/7/15 it was ordered that the complaint should proceed exparte.
34. The complainants were still in the process of negotiating the details regarding the villa to be purchased through emails and while doing so, the complainants paid to OP No. 3 Rs. 25,75,000/-, Rs. 13 lacs and Rs. 12,50,000/- on 20/6/12 (details at page 185 onwards) and Rs. 20,50,000/- on 22/10/12 through RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement System). However, no agreement came to be executed between the complainants and any of the OPs, though a draft agreement was sent to the complainants by OP No. 5 by email dated 6/6/12. Likewise, indemnity bond sent to the complainants on behalf of OP No. 1 vide email dated 25/9/12 also remained to be executed. The proposed indemnity bond was to be executed by OP No. 1 in favour of the complainants with a view to keep them indemnified against any loss arising from any claim to be suffered by them in case any defect in title and ownership of OP No. 1 in the said property arising out of non-availability of title documents pertaining to the ownership of the said property. The OP No. 3 had also written to complainant No. 2, stating that in case at any time any defect was found in the title and/or marketability of the said property or in case for any reason whatsoever, OP No. 3, as owner and developer was not able to satisfy the buyer (Complainant No. 2) as to the title, the amount paid by the buyer would be refunded forthwith within 10 days with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the respective dates of payments.
5. The complainant No. 2 thereafter wrote a letter to OP No. 4 dated 6/5/13 stating that it was over four weeks since he had made the request for refund and that he would require the payments before that week with interest as was indicated in the booking receipt. Earlier, on 9/4/13 the complainant No. 2 had written to OP No. 4 stating that many issues were still unresolved and there were many changes to 4 the original deal and therefore he felt risky to proceed with the transaction and had requested him to refund the said amount of Rs. 71.75 lacs. Legal notice dated 26/9/13 then followed demanding refund of the said sum of Rs. 71.75 lacs with interest at the rate of 18%.
6. Even after filing of this complaint, the complainant wrote a letter dated 13/10/14, followed by letter dated 16/12/14 requesting to expedite the refund as promised latest by 19th December 2014. There was no answer from the said OP No. 4 or for that matter any of the OPs.
7. The complainants have proved the payments made by them. Since there has been no final agreement between the parties as regards the purchase of the said villa, the complainants are entitled for refund of the money paid by them. Considering the facts of the case, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally to refund the said amount of Rs. 71.75 lacs to the complainants with interest at the rate of 10%, as per prayer (a) of the complaint. The complainants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) and costs of Rs. 5000/- in terms of prayer (f). The consumer complaint shall accordingly stands disposed off. The payments to be made within a period of 30 days and in case not made the sum of Rs. 71.75 lacs shall carry interest at the rate of 12% and the sum of Rs. 30,000/- + Rs. 5000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 9% until the same are paid.
[ Smt. Vidhya R. Gurav ] [ Justice N. A. Britto ]
Member President
sp/-