PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. PRAFULL VINOD & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this First Appeal, under Section 19 read with Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), a Real Estate Developer, namely, Parsvnath Developers Limited, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint under the Act, calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 21.07.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2011. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint, preferred by the Complainants, the Respondents herein, the State Commission has directed the Appellant to refund to the Complainants a sum of Rs. 21,91,300/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization, within a period of 60 from the date of the order, failing which the Appellant was made liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a.

(2.) The Complainants had booked a residential flat, admeasuring 1710 sq. ft., in the project, christened as "Parsvnath Palacia", launched by the Appellant in Greater Noida, U.P. On payment of the booking amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, vide cheque dated 27.06.2008, the Appellant issued allotment letter dated 10.07.2008 in favour of the Complainants. On 11.10.2008, a flat buyers' agreement was entered into between the parties. As per Clause 10(a) of the said agreement, physical possession of the flat was required to be handed over to the Complainants within a period of 36 months of the date of commencement of the construction. As regards delay in completion of the project, the agreement also stipulated compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month. As against the total sale consideration of Rs. 56,43,000/-, by 06.10.2010, the Complainants had paid a sum of Rs. 21,91,300/- to the Appellant. Despite several requests made, orally and by emails, between 10.04.2011 and 26.07.2011, the Appellant failed to deliver possession to the Complainants. Faced with the dilemma, when the completion of the project was not in sight, they requested the Appellant to refund the amount paid by them, along with interest and damages. Their request was in vain. In the said background, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant in not completing the project on time and delivering the possession of the flat, the Complaint came to be filed before the State Commission, wherein the reliefs, as mentioned in the Complaint, were prayed for.

(3.) Upon notice, the Appellant contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.