Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17.     For the reasons recorded above, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-
(i)    To refund an amount of Rs.3,21,049/- for increased area + Rs.9920/- as service tax on increased area + Rs.85,131/- paid as Pre-EMI to HDFC + Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.14,141/- (Total Rs.4,55,241/-) along with interest @12% from the date of the respective deposits by the complainant till realization.

5. It was further stated that the complainant booked his flat under the subvention scheme wherein the Opposite Parties were to pay the Pre-EMIs to the HDFC till the date actual possession was given as the complainant had taken home loan of Rs.25,60,000/- from HDFC. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties had been paying pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. up to June, 2012 and, therefore, they suddenly stopped paying the pre-EMI, as a result whereof, the complainant had to pay Rs.85,131/- as pre-EMI to HDFC for the period from July 2012 to September 2012. It was further stated that possession of the unit was given on 14.9.2012 after a delay of 14 months, for which, the complainant was entitled to be compensated @Rs.15,000/- per month and, as such, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay Rs.2,10,000/- + interest @18%.

18. It was further submitted that once pre-EMI interest had been paid by the appellants/Opposite Parties, till the date of offering of possession in July, 2012, by no stretch of imagination could the appellants/Opposite Parties be placed under any obligation to continue to pay pre-EMI interest to the banker with whom a tripartite agreement was executed.

19. It was further submitted that as per Schedule-I of the allotment letter, the respondent/complainant was liable to pay Rs.20,000/- towards IDC. It was further submitted that the District Forum in Para 10 of its order also rightly held that a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards IDC was payable by the respondent/complainant. It was further submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Forum, being erroneous, be set aside.

20. The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties had been paying the Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. up to June, 2012 and, thereafter, they suddenly stopped paying the same and the respondent/complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.85,131/- as Pre-EMI to HDFC Ltd. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.85,131/-, which he paid as Pre-EMI. It was further submitted that there was delay of 14 months in handing over actual possession of the flat. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly directed the appellants/Opposite Parties to refund Rs.3,21,049/- alongwith service tax of Rs.9,920/- charged on account of alleged increase in area of the flat. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly held that the respondent/complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment on account of delay on the part of Opposite Parties, in handing over the possession.