SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD Vs. SANDEEP KUMAR GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dtd. 5/10/2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was allowed and the Opposite Party Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Builder) was directed to waive off the holding charges as well as charges of interest 24% p.a. on the delayed payment and to handover the physical possession of the Apartment, complete in all respects, to the Complainants and to pay interest @12% p.a. on the total amount paid by the Complainants from the tentative date of delivery of possession, i.e., 19/7/2013 till realization. The Appellant Builder was also directed to refund service tax amount which was deposited by the Complainants alongwith interest @6% from the date of deposit till the date of refund. The Appellant Builder was further directed to pay compensation of ?2,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the Complainants alongwith cost of ?50,000/- within 45 days failing which the Complainants would be entitled to get the interest @15% per annum for the defaulting period.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant Builder launched a housing Project in the name and style "Parikarma Housing Project" located at Sector - 20, Panchkula and the Complainants/ Respondents booked an Apartment No. 1203, Tower No. 5A, having super area of 1850 sq. ft. at a basic sale price of ?55,05,600/- and ?3,00,000/- towards car parking. Apartment Buyer Agreement was executed between the Parties on 19/7/2010. The Complainants deposited a sum of ?53,82,806/- with the Appellant Builder as per schedule but deposited the installment of ?5,12,925/- on 29/11/2016 vide cheque No. 536571. As per clause 25 of the Apartment Buyers Agreement, the Appellant Builder was bound to deliver the possession of the Flat within 36 months from the date of the execution of the Agreement. It was alleged by the Complainants that despite having received substantial amount from them the Appellant Builder offered the possession of the Flat on 25/1/2016, i.e., delay of about 2 1/2 years from 19/7/2013, i.e., the expected/proposed date of delivery of the possession. After receiving the letter of offer of possession dtd. 25/1/2016, the Complainants visited the site and found that the Project was still incomplete. Construction work was going on. The basic amenities like water, sewerage, electricity wood work flooring etc. as shown in the sample flat, had not been completed by the Appellant Builder. Vide letter dtd. 4/10/2016, the Appellant Builder demanded interest @24% on the outstanding dues whereas as per previous letter dtd. 25/1/2016, the previous outstanding amount was reflected as ?2,53,207/- and the compensation amount on delayed possession as adjusted by the Appellant Builder was ?4,95,800/-. Thus, reflecting net amount of ?2,42,593/- which was payable to the Complainants by the Appellant Builder yet vide letter dtd. 4/10/2016 Appellant Builder sought interest @24% p.a. on the outstanding dues, which is illegal. The Complainants made representation to the Appellant Builder on 13/12/2016 but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant Builder, the Complainants filed a consumer Complaint before the State Commission seeking waiver of illegal excessive interest @24% on the delayed payment; possession of the flat alongwith delay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the amount deposited by them and compensation of ?3 lakh towards mental harassment alongwith litigation cost of ?50,000/-.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Appellant Builder before the State Commission by denying all the allegations made by the Complainant and it was submitted that as on 15/2/2017, the Complainants had deposited a sum of ?58,95,731/- with them and there was outstanding dues of ?7,49,292/- on the Complainants. It was further submitted that as per Clause 25 of the Agreement, the possession of the Flat was to be delivered within 3 years from the date of execution of this agreement OR approval of all services plans whichever is later. The service plans were approved on 27/12/2013. Occupation certificate was granted for tower in question on 18/1/2016 and possession offered to the Complainants on 25/1/2016 i.e. well within the period of three years from approval of service plans set out in the Agreement. The possession had been offered to the complainant only upon completion of all amenities including water, sewerage, electricity and completion of wood work flooring etc. The construction was to be completed as per provisional specifications set out under the agreement. All demands including interest raised on 4/10/2016 were strictly in accordance with clauses 6, 26 and 33 of the Apartment Buyer's Agreement. The interest on the delayed payments has been demanded in accordance with the terms of the agreement. As a goodwill gesture vide letter dtd. 20/4/2016, they offered a one-time amnesty scheme wherein it was decided to waive 50% of interest accrued on delayed payments subject to payment of outstanding amounts before 20/5/2016, however, the complainants failed to take advantage of such scheme and did not deposit any payments. It was submitted that amounts under every head were explicitly mentioned in the possession offer letter dtd. 25/1/2016. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.