At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. ANIL SRIVASTAVA
For the Appearing Parties: -----------------
1. This complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) by Sh. Aman Bhatnagar against M/s Falcon Reality Services P. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as complainant and OP respectively alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP having not delivered possession of the flat booked by him within the time as agreed to despite paying the requisite amount.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the complaint are these.
3. The complainant and his brother Sh. Ajay Bhatnagar lured by the induces and advancement had applied for the allotment of a flat in the project of the OP in “Sakura Hoesm” a group housing at Global Eco City on NH-8 Expressway, BTK Urban Complex, National Capital Region, Kotkasim-301702, District Alwar, Rajasthan on 13.01.2020 after depositing the booking amount of Rs.2 lakhs. The total sale consideration for the premises was Rs. 27 lakhs. The possession was to be delivered within 3 years from the date of the agreement and as a consequence thereof the OP had allotted him a unit bearing no. 765 7th floor of the size of 1250 sq. ft.
4. However the agreed period has over but the possession has not been delivered. In these circumstances this complaint has been filed for the redressal of the grievances.
5. OPs were noticed and in response thereto they have filed the reply resisting the complaint both on the merit and on technical grounds stating that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on non-joinder of proper parties and secondly on merit the complainant having been found to be defaulter in which case he is not entitled for any rlief.
6. The rejoinder has also been filed. Both sides have also filed evidence.
7. Short question or adjudication is whether there is any deficiency of service as against the OPs they having delayed handing over possession of the flat. On perusal of the records it is noticed that the OP was found wanting in discharge of their duties inasmuch as delivery of the flat was not been done within the time as agreed to and no cogent reasons have been assigned for the delay. In these circumstances I am of the view that the complaint deserves to be accepted.
8. Having reached to this conclusion the point for consideration is the relief the complainant can be considered to be granted. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Anil Shantilal Gandhi versus Sahara Prime City Ltd. as reported in IV  CPJ 24 (NC) in pleased to direct refund of the amount deposited with interest @ 10%, the OP having failed to offer the possession of the allotted unit to complainant even after more than eight years time.
9. Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Puneet Malhotra vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. CC 232/2014 decided on 29.01.2015 has held as under:
“The opposite party has already taken almost entire sale consideration from the complainants. However, despite making almost entire payment, the complainants have not been able to get the shelters they had sought to acquire and considering the steep increase in the value of land and the cost of construction in last 7-8 years, it is not possible for them to acquire another similar accommodation even after adding the amount of interest @ 18% per annum to the amount they had deposited with the opposite party. Therefore , the facts of these cases are really gross and justify grant of interest @ 18% per annum, inclusive of appreciation in the value of land and in the cost of construction in last about 7-8 years. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount which the complainants had deposited with it, along with interest on the said amount @ 18% per annum from the date the deposit was made till the date the refund is made. This comprises 8% per annum on account of appreciation in the land value and increase in cost of construction and 10% on account of interest. However, considering that compensation is included in grant of interest @ 18% per annum, we do not grant any separate compensation to the complainants over and above interest @ 18% per annum.”
The Hon’ble NCDRC in yet another matter, in the matter of Swarn Talwar and two ors vs Unitech Ltd. passed in CC 347/2014 decided on 14.08.2015 holding as under:
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid to it by the complainants, along with compensation in the form of simple interest on that amount, at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within six weeks from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost. The complaints stand disposed of.
10. Besides, their Lordships in Apex Court in the matter of Fortune Infrastructure and Anr versus Trevor D’lima and ors as reported in II CPJ 1 (SC) are pleased to hold as under:
Person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flats allotted to them. They are entitled to seek refund of amount paid by them, alongwith compensation.
11. Having regard to the discussion done and the legal position having been explained I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the OPs to
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
refund the deposited amount with compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 7% from the date of deposit of the amount till its realisation. This rate of interest has been ordered keeping in view the situation prevalent now. This payment be made by the OPs to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Ordered accordingly leaving the parties to bear the cost. 13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. 14. File be consigned to records.