State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Rana Ranjit Singh Dhillon vs M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. on 20 February, 2013
3rd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1237 of 2009
Date of institution: 27.8.2009
Date of decision : 20.2.2013
Sh. Rana Ranjit Singh Dhillon son of Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, resident of H.
No. 40-A, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. M/s JTPL Townships Private Ltd. earlier known as JMD
Townships Pvt. Ltd. through its Directors, present address F-82,
District Central Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi.
2. M/s JTPL Townships Pvt. Ltd. earlier known as JMD Townships
Pvt. Ltd., Main Landran-Kharar Road, Sector-115, Mohali.
3. M/s Monga Realtors Private Ltd. Through its Directors, SCO No.
672, 2nd Floor, Sector-70, Mohali.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 27.7.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Before:-
Shri. Piare Lal Garg, Presiding Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Tapas Sharma, Advocate
For respondents No.1&2 : Sh. K.K. Jha, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Ex.-parte.
PIARE LAL GARG, PRESIDING MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant-Rana Ranjit Singh Dhillon (hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 27.7.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar(Mohali)(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the appellant was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant booked two rooms set on first floor of apartment measuring 1290 sq. ft. on 7.4.2006 First Appeal No. 1237 of 2009 2 with respondents No. 1 & 2 through respondent No. 3 and paid Rs. 3 lacs as booking amount vide cheque No. 078086 dated 7.4.2006. As per the conditions of the allotment, the apartment was to be constructed within six months from the date of registration of the application, failing which the appellant/applicant was entitled for the simple interest @ 10% per annum on the booking amount. Respondents No. 1 & 2 had not constructed the flats and there was total absence of construction activities at the site. The appellant made a request to the respondents for the refund of the amount which was deposited with the respondents by the appellant vide cheque dated 7.4.2006 but the same was not refunded. Complaint was filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to refund Rs. 3 lacs with interest, Rs. 5,000/- as expenses incurred on personal visits and phone calls, Rs. 3 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by taking preliminary objections that the appellant had not come to the District Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, bad for mis-joinder of parties, complaint was not maintainable at Mohali, the complaint was not within limitation. On merits, the booking of the flat was not denied by the respondents but it was denied that the appellant was assured regarding the delivery of possession within six months from the date of registration. It was also alleged that the appellant never approached respondents No. 1 & 2 for the refund of the amount, if he had approached then respondents No. 1 & 2 would have refunded the same without any delay. The licence was issued by the M.C. Kharar for the development of Township in the year of 2006. The respondents No. 1 & 2 never intentionally delayed the project and harassed the applicants. The advance amount of almost of the applicants had been refunded, who approached for the refund of the same. Respondents No. 1 & 2 on various occasions offered the refund of the First Appeal No. 1237 of 2009 3 amount to the appellant but he refused to accept the same. On 14.1.2009, three cheques of Rs. 1 lac each bearing Nos. 414197, 98 & 99 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Cantonment Branch, New Delhi were sent to the appellant for refund of his advance money of Rs. 3 lacs but the same was returned by the appellant as unclaimed, as such, he was not entitled for any interest and compensation after 14.1.2009. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, accepted the complaint and directed respondents No. 1 & 2 to refund Rs. 3 lacs deposited by the appellant with respondents No. 1 & 2 with interest @ 10% per annum from 8.10.2006 till its payment, Rs. 5,000/- on account of expenses incurred on personal visits and making phone calls, with Rs. 4,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. The appellant filed the present appeal for the modification of the order as no compensation for harassment was granted by the District Forum as well as the interest @ 10% is on lower side and prayed for the interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs. 3 lacs which was deposited by the appellant with respondents No. 1 & 2 from the date of its deposit not after six months as ordered by the District Forum.
6. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant had applied for a two room flat with respondents No. 1 & 2 through respondent No. 3 and paid Rs. 3 lacs with an application on 7.4.2006 by way of a cheque.
7. There is also no dispute that the flat was not constructed by respondents No. 1 & 2, as such, the complaint was filed by the appellant for the refund of Rs. 3 lacs with interest which was deposited by him with the respondents as earnest money/registration fees. First Appeal No. 1237 of 2009 4
8. The application Ex. C-2 of the appellant was registered by respondents No. 1 & 2. As per the terms and conditions 'A' of the Registration Application reads as follows:-
"that your offer of allotment for a flat in your proposed scheme shall as far as possible be made to me/us within six months of my registration of application made herein failing which we shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum thereafter."
9. So from the above term and condition Ex. C-2 of "advance towards registration of flat in present/future projects" which was signed by the appellant. If respondents No. 1 & 2 fails to construct and to deliver the possession of the flat within six months from the date of registration then the appellant was entitled for the refund of advance with interest @ 10% per annum thereafter. The District Forum had also directed respondents No. 1 & 2 for the refund of Rs. 3 lacs with interest @ 10% from 8.10.2006 i.e. after six months of registration of the flat by the appellant with respondents No. 1 & 2 as per condition 'A' of the registration application Ex. C-2.
10. Respondents No. 1 & 2 did not even start the construction of the flat as per their promise and as per Clause 'A' of the terms and conditions of the registration application and utilized the amount of the appellant illegally till the order of the District Forum. Even in the District Forum, respondents No. 1 & 2 had not offered for the refund of Rs. 3 lacs which was received as advance from the appellant with interest @ 10% per annum as per the terms and conditions 'A' of the registration application, which show that the version of respondents No. 1 & 2 that they were ready to refund the amount with interest is not correct. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Smt. Sudha CP and 87 Ors. Versus M/s Megacity (Bangalore) Developers Pvt. Ltd.", 2009 (1) CPC 525 in para Nos. 2 & 7 as follows:-
First Appeal No. 1237 of 2009 5
"7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, we find that without exposing the petitioner to further risk and uncertainty on the issue of the respondent's ability to deliver the possession especially with regard to title of land as well as the status of the land which is reported to have been acquired by the State, and there being dispute(s) with regard to the transfer of the use of land, in our view, the interest of the petitioner will be best served, if the order of the State Commission is upheld with the modification that the petitioner/complainants shall be entitled to refund of money along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective date of deposits along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 payable to each of the petitioners/complainants and we order accordingly........."
11. The similar facts are involved in the present dispute.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted and the order under appeal is modified.
13. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the appellant for harassment and mental agony, which he suffered due to non delivery of the flat as per Clause 'A' of Registration Application and even not refunded the amount if they were not in a position to comply with the condition regarding the delivery of possession of the flat within six months from the registration of the flat as well as payment of Rs. 3 lacs in advance by the appellant to respondents No. 1 & 2.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.2.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Piare Lal Garg)
Presiding Member
February 20, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member