ARIHANT SHIVANK INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. RENU MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) challenge in these First Appeal Nos. 1886 of 2018, 1887 of 2018, 1888 of 2018, 1889 of 2018 and 160 of 2019, filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by M/s. Arihant Shivank Infra Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party Builder") is to the Orders dated 21.08.2018 and 20.11.2018 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as the "State Commission"), in Complaint Nos. 03 / 2017, 20 / 2017, 21 / 2017, 22 / 2017 and 23 / 2017 whereby the Complaints were allowed and the Opposite Party Builder was directed to refund the deposited amount by the Complainants alongwith 18% interest from the date of deposit. The Opposite Party Builder was also directed to pay 2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and 50,000/- towards cost of proceedings Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Appeals are similar except for minor variations in the flat number and dates and events, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal No. 1886 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Complaint No. 20 of 2017.

(2.) The Opposite Party Builder contested the Complaint before the State Commission by filing Written Statement.In the Written Statement, the Opposite Party Builder submitted that the delay in completing the Project had been caused due to obtaining Environment Sanction from the State Government which was to be granted within 90 days but the State Government took 11 months' time to grant the Environment Sanction in the absence of which Construction activity could not be possible and it disturbed the Construction Schedule.Accordingly, the delay was caused due to the reasons which were beyond their control and, therefore, they are not liable to pay damages for delay in handing over the possession of the Flat.However, in terms of Clause 9 of the Agreement, they are liable to pay damages @ 5/- per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period and that too only in normal circumstances.The Opposite Party Builder further submitted that they are still ready to give the possession of the Flat to the Complainant.There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

(3.) During the proceedings, before the State Commission the Opposite Party Builder was granted time to file Evidence on record subject to payment of costs.But the Opposite Party failed to deposit the Cost, therefore, Evidence of the Opposite Party Builder was not taken on record by the State Commission.