GULSHAN KUMAR KAPOOR V. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED & 2 ORS.

1. GULSHAN KUMAR KAPOOR
S/o. Shri Kesar Dass, Through his attorney Shri Aryan Goyal,
CHANDIGARH

Versus

Having its registered office at: 6th Floor, Aruncahal Building,
19, Barakhamba Road,
2. PRASVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.

CHANDIGARH
3. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.

PANCHKULA
HARYANA

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 1376 OF 2017

Date of Judgement: 04 October 2023

Judges:

FOR THE COMPLAINANT : MS ANCHITA NAYYAR, PROXY COUNSEL(WITH AUTHORITY LETTER)

FOR THE OPP. PARTY : MR PRABHAKAR TIWARI, ADVOCATE

Facts:

Arguments:
Complainant:
There is deficiency in service as possession not given despite substantial payments. False assurances given on construction progress to receive payments. Seeks refund of amount paid with interest @ 18% p.a. plus compensation and costs.

Opposite Party:
Sections and Laws Referred:
Consumer Protection Act 1986, Sections 2(1)(d), 21. Referred Judgments: Emaar MGF Land Ltd vs Aftab Singh, Imperia Structures Ltd vs Anil Patni, Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd vs Govindan Raghavan.

Download Court Copy: https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/download6.pdf

Full Text of Judgment:

1. This consumer complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) is filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in not handing over possession of the flat booked by the complainant within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with interest as compensation and other costs.
2. The complainant states that he obtained a flat in “Parsvanath Royale”, a project promoted and developed by the opposite party in Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana on transfer from the original allottee, M/s Vardhaman Associates Pvt. Ltd., Ground Floor, Indra Prakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi which had been allotted Flat no. T 7-1001, 10 th Floor, Tower 7 admeasuring approx. 1740 sq ft. A sum of Rs 8,90,662.50 was paid by the original allottee and a Flat Buyer’s Agreement (FBA) had been signed on 05.05.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs 59,37,750/- stipulating the basic rate of the flat @ Rs 3412.50 per sq ft plus other charges for EDC, infrastructure development, etc. Under clause 10(a) of the FBA, subject to force majeure events, the period of completion of the project was stated to be 36 months with another 6 months as grace period from the date of signing of the FBA, i.e. 05.11.2014 failing which compensation @ Rs 5/- per sq ft per month would be paid by the opposite party. A sum of Rs 47,44,142/- was paid as on 12.12.2013. However, possession had not been offered till date by the Opposite Party. In view of the fact that the project had not been completed on time, the complainant is before this Commission alleging deficiency in service with the prayer to direct the opposite party to:

(d) any other orders as deemed fit.

4. Parties led their evidence and filed their short synopsis of arguments. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the evidence on record carefully.
6. On behalf of the opposite party it was argued that the period of 42 months for construction mentioned in the FBA was indicative only. it was admitted that there had been a delay in the completion of the project although this was ascribed to force majeure events. It was also argued that the reasons for the delay were beyond the control of the opposite party as it was due to events which were beyond the control of the opposite party and could not be ascribed to it resulting in delay. The complainant was a consistent defaulter who was not entitled to relief. The project had also been registered under RERA and was likely to be executed within the stipulated time frame. It was admitted that neither had an occupancy certificate been obtained by it nor had an offer of possession been made to the complaint made as on date.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the arguments of the opposite party. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the complaint is found to have merits and is liable to succeed. It is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
(ii) this order shall be complied within 8 weeks of this order failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum.
(iii) opposite party shall also pay Rs 50,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

All pending IAs stand disposed of with this order.