Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Pay Rs.26,89,000/- + Rs.19,742/- + Rs.24,132/-=Rs. 27,32,834/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the various dates of payment minus the pre-EMIs interest paid by OP No. 1 to OP No.2. It is further observed that first payment due to OP No. 2 will be cleared first and then to the Complainant.

OP NO. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and inconvenience suffered by the Complainant.

Pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

7.       The Complainant further informed the Developer that as there are major discrepancies in the construction he does not seek possession of the same and sought for refund of the amounts paid by the Complainant together with amounts disbursed by DHFL along with interest, but there was no response.

8.       It is further averred that on 09.07.2016, the Developer sent an email to DHFL that pre EMIs should be charged from the Complainant with effect from 01.07.2016 as the intimation of the possession has already been conveyed to the Complainant on 15.05.2016. It was stated that the Developer on 15.07.2016 sent an email demanding an amount of ₹6,35,985/- and have also charged ₹5,554/- towards interest on the delayed payment. It was averred that such a demand by the Developer was totally illegal as the said Floor cannot be offered for possession when the construction is still going on.  On 28.07.2016 the Complainant once again sent an email addressing to all the grievances to the Developer. The Complainant further protested regarding the charging of  ₹19,742/-  pre EMI for the month of July 2016, ₹24,132/- as pre EMI for the month of August 2016, which the Complainant was forced to pay. The Developer had printed very rosy picture at the time of booking promising a corner flat adjoining the park but in reality, the Developer was constructing another unit adjoining the said Floor. It is pleaded that the Complainant had paid an amount of ₹4,79,000/- to the Developer, availed loan from DHFL, which has forwarded the sum of ₹22,14,000/- and additionally the Complainant has also paid a pre EMI of ₹19,742/- for July 2016 and ₹24,132/- for August 2016. Totally, the Developer has received an amount of ₹26,89,000/- and the Complainant vexed with the attitude of the Developer seeks refund of the said amount of ₹26,89,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till the date of realization together with ₹10,00,000/- as compensation and ₹1,00,000/- as costs. 

"10.  Now with regard to the possession letter, it was offered on 15.5.2016 and after that the Complainant had gone at the spot Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 2016  and had taken the photographs, which are Ex. C-15. These were taken by him on 26.5.2016 and it clearly shows that work on the Floor is still going on, therefore, as on 15.5.2016, the flat was not complete. It has not been denied that the photographs Ex. C-15 are not dated 26.5.2016 and that still the Floor was incomplete. The Complainant had given the email Ex. C-16 on 31.5.2016 giving all the details and pictures were attached to the Op No.1. Then Op No. 1 replied in email dated 27.6.2016 Ex. C-20 in which they have stated that the work was going on in other flats. But in the rebuttal they have not denied the photographs. In reply to that email, the Complainant again gave email dated 27.6.2016 Ex. C-21 in which it was stated that there adjoining flat was still under construction, pictures were attached, therefore, it was not feasible to shift in such a residential area and it has been further stated that she was charged for PLC and now other building is coming up. Therefore, at the time of offering the possession, the flat in question was not complete and offer of possession was delivered just to save the pre-EMI payments to Op No. 2. No doubt that Op No. 2 has taken the partial completion certificate of this plot only and not of the project, therefore, simple partial completion certificate of this flat is not acceptable because it does not refer to completion of other amenities attached to the project/Floor. It has been further stated that there is no POP work in the living room. It was so undertaken by them in the specifications alongwith the layout plan Ex. C-8 and in the first line, it has been stated that POP in living/drawing room and OBD on fine surface in bedrooms and lobby. The counsel for Op No. 1 has not placed on the record any photograph showing POP work in living/dining room. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deviation in the construction by Op No. 1 for not giving opening to rear balcony from both the bedrooms. It is provided only in one bedroom. No cupboard in both the bedrooms. No cupboard in lobby. Instead of modular kitchen only simple kitchen has been provided and the wash rooms have not been made as per the layout plan. The showers taps and toilet fittings have been placed differently than what has been shown in the layout plan, therefore, it is practically not possible to sit in the bathroom as the western seat is placed in such a place that no one can take a shower. No POP work in the living/dining room. PLC was charged for two roads to the flat but it is only one road and PLC charges were wrongly charged. Instead of giving road to the corner, they have started raising construction. Whether in such a situation, the Complainant is bound to accept the possession. Certainly, its reply will be in negative. In the written arguments, what have been stated in the written reply the same have been repeated in the written arguments. In case Op No. 1 has not raised the construction as per the layout plan and the specifications given at the time of booking of the flat then Complainant is not bound to accept such a flat. Then completion certificate is only with regard to one flat only and not of the project and till the amenities attached to the project are not complete then completion of the construction of one flat is meaningless because it is a township and not a single flat. In that situation, the Complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him directly and on his behalf by Op No. 2. With regard to the payment of Rs.26,89,000/-, it stands admitted because Rs.4,75,000/- was paid by the Complainant from his own pocket and Rs.22,14,000/- was paid by Op No. 2 on behalf of the Complainant to Op No. 1. Since the flat was not complete as on 15.5.2016,  therefore, the payment of pre-EMI of Rs.19,742/- and Rs.24,132/- paid by the Complainant to Op No. 2 is also required to be paid by Op No. 1 to Op No. 2." 

13.     Learned counsel appearing for the Complainant/Appellant in First Appeal No. 557 of 2018 vehemently argued that though the State Commission has given a right finding of deficiency of service against the Developer, it has failed to appreciate that DHFL was also at default as without verifying the facts and monitoring the project, they have released the entire amount which has been done in a mechanical manner. As per the Tripartite Agreement and the Subvention Scheme under which the Complainant had booked the Floor, DHFL was supposed to release the money at various stages of construction. This was completely overlooked by DHFL and the amounts were released to the Developer without obtaining any layout plan and without even checking the stages of construction. Had DHFL been vigilant prior to release of the amounts to the Developer, it could have saved the Complainant from harassment and mental agony. Though the Complainant had exercised a choice of Subvention Plan for making the payment to the Developer, DHFL did not adhere to the same thereby causing severe financial hardship to the Complainant. It was further argued that the order of the State Commission ought to be modified by awarding refund of EMI of ₹4,10,244/- i.e. EMI of ₹24,132/- per month by the Complainant from September 2016 till January, 2018. Additionally, the Complainant is also entitled for refund of ₹4,75,000/- + ₹19,742/- + ₹24,132/-= ₹5,18,874/-. It is also prayed that the Developer should be directed to pay the pre EMIs as he had used the finance amount but has deviated from the original layout plan and the preferred location was also not provided.