NARAYAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. RANJEET CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dtd. 17/10/2017 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by Ranjeet Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) before the State Commission was allowed and the M/s. Narayan Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Builder) was directed to pay Rs.41,68,374.00 alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of deposit to the Punjab National Bank and the Punjab National Bank was directed to pay the balance amount to the Complainant after adjusting their outstanding dues including interest and cost. The Appellant Builder was also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000.00 towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.25,000.00 to the Complainant.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant Builder launched a Group Housing Project in the name and style of "Urbana Jewells" (hereinafter referred to as the Project) located near Guhana Mandi, Village Madrampura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. Allured by the advertisements and assurances made by the Sales Representatives of the Appellant Builder, the Complainant booked a Flat No. TA-503 admeasuring 1496.30 sq.ft. in the said Project by paying booking amount of Rs.1,11,000.00 to the Appellant Builder on 4/5/2013. The total cost of the Flat was Rs.43,89,022.00. It was alleged in the Complaint that after receiving Rs.8,24,720.00, i.e., 20% of the total sale consideration, Builder Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 18/10/2013. The Complainant obtained Housing Loan from Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Bank) for which Tripartite Agreement was executed between the Parties. It was alleged that the terms of the Agreement were biased and only in favour of the Appellant Builder. As per terms of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement, i.e., by 18/10/2015. The Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.41,68,374.00, i.e., 95% of the total sale consideration with the Appellant Builder upto 27/8/2014. It was alleged that vide letter dtd. 17/7/2015, the Appellant demanded Rs.2,25,000.00 towards parking charges, Rs.29,925.00 towards lease money, Rs.2,05,666.00 towards HT/LT External Development Charges, Rs.67,416.00 towards club membership fee and Rs.2,65,190.00 towards late interest from the Complainant with a request that the said amount be deposited within 30 days, failing which the allotment of the Flat would be cancelled and earnest money would be forfeited. The Complainant objected the said demand and sent reply to the said demand letter to the Appellant Builder informing him that the said demand is illegal and in case of failure to deposit the said illegal demand, the Appellant Builder has no right cancel his allotment of the Flat. The Complainant also met with the officers of the Appellant Builder to sort out the matter. Despite that the Appellant Builder vide Notice dtd. 17/7/2015 informed the Complainant that the allotment of the flat has been cancelled and the earnest money has been forfeited. It is the case of the Complainant that as per terms of the Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 24 months from the date of Agreement, i.e., by 18/10/2015 but despite having received 95% of the sale consideration, the Appellant Builder has not completed the construction and failed to obtain Completion Certificate from Jaipur Development Authority; No Objection Certificate from Indian Airport Authority and Fire Department rather the Appellant Builder had threatened to cancel the allotment of the Flat for not paying the illegal demand made by the Appellant Builder. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Builder, the Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

(3.) The Appellant Builder contested the Complaint before the State Commission by submitting that the complaint lacks pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission; the Complainant defaulted in making payment and the Complainant asked refund of money whereas in terms of the Tripartite Agreement, the money could be refunded to the Bank only. They are ready to give possession but after making payment of the outstanding dues. There is no deficiency in service on their part.