RAHUL CHHATWAL Vs. RELIANT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order, dated 28.4.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 673 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP/respondnet to refund Rs. 6,33,000 to him (complainant) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of its deposit till realization along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case, are that the OP advertised, in the year 2008, and invited applications for allotment of residential flats at Santemajra, Tehsil and District Mohali (Punjab). The complainant contacted the OP with a dream of his own flat, near Chandigarh. The OP assured the complainant that the allotment of complete builtup flat would be given to all the allottee applicants by October, 2009. It was further stated that after getting assurance from the OP, the complainant applied for allotment of flat and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,10,000. The OP allotted Studio Apartment No. G -16, Tower E on Ground Floor in Work 1 at Mohali to the complainant, for a total price of Rs. 13,99,000 and the super area of the said flat was approximately 628 sq. ft. Thereafter, the OP prepared the buyer's agreement and Clause 4.a of the said agreement deals with the delivery of possession and reads that the possession of the apartment was proposed to be delivered by the developer to the purchaser by October, 2009 subject to force majeure circumstances, beyond the control of the developer, and upon registration of the sale deed provided all amounts due and payable by the purchaser under the agreement had been paid to the developer within the stipulated period. It was further stated that the OP had failed to deliver possession of the flat by the stipulated date. It was further stated that the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 6,33,000 out of the total amount of the flat of Rs. 13,99,000 with the OP and the latter also issued ledger account from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2011 acknowledging the receipt of this amount. The complainant waited for the delivery of possession of the flat but the OP failed to deliver the same, despite repeated requests and visits. The complainant visited the office of the OP in the month of December, 2009, and enquired the status of flats. The OP reassured that the project was under construction and advised the complainant to wait for some time more. It was further stated that as per Clause 4.c.ii of the buyers agreement, the opposite party was to pay Rs. 5 per sq. ft. per month as compensation for the period of delay in offering the possession of the said apartment beyond the period indicated in clause 4.a.i which means that the complainant was entitled to compensation at the aforesaid rate from October, 2009 till the date of payment. It was further stated that the OP had failed to deliver the possession of the flat by the end of October, 2009, which amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Accordingly, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by the OP, in which, it was stated that the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 14.5.2008 which included the clear payment schedule which was to be followed by every buyer. It was further stated that the complainant was asked vide letters dated 9.7.2008 and 17.9.2008 to make the payment of Rs. 2,09,850 and Rs. 3,49,750. It was admitted that, as per the buyer agreement, the construction of flats, had to be completed by October, 2009 provided all the amounts due and payable by the purchaser, under the said agreement, had been paid to the developer within the stipulated period. It was further stated that the complainant did not make all the due payments and only 50% payment was made by him. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP and nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.