w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manohar Kumar & Another v/s M/s. Narang Construction & Finance Pvt. Ltd.

    Revision Petition No. 2660 of 2015

    Decided On, 01 April 2016

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioners: Vishnu Mehra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ashish Kumar, A.M. Tripathi, Advocates.



Judgment Text

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member

1. Smt. Anita Kumari and Sh. Manohar Kumar, booked flat with M/s Narang Construction and Finance Pvt. Ltd. – the OP in this case. They deposited Rs.8,00,000/- through cheque dated 15.06.2008. Flat No. 411 in Block H, 4th Floor was allotted to them. The OP again demanded Rs.5,50,000/- towards the allotment of the flat. The complainants paid Rs.2,50,000/- through cheque and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash. The total amount deposited by the complainants was Rs.13,50,000/-. It was agreed that possession of the flat would be handed over within two years from the date of allotment i.e., in the year 2008. The complaint was filed before the District Forum in December 2012. Till then, the possession was not handed over to the complainants. They requested the OP to accept the balance amount, but it did not ring the bell. In the complaint they prayed that the OP be directed to accept the balance amount in respect of the aforesaid flat, without interest because it had failed to hand over physical possession within two years from the date of allotment and pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc. and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The OP listed the following defenses. The Complainants had deposited a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- only. They were required to make further payment for signing agreement papers and issuance of allotment letter. 13 reminders and two telephone calls as detailed in the order of the State Commission were sent but those did not evoke any response from the complainants.

3. The District Forum decided the case in favour of the complainants. It directed the OP to accept the balance amount from the complainants without interest because the OP was already utilizing the huge amount of Rs.13,50,000/- of the complainants. OP was further directed to hand over the same flat or another flat in favour of the complainants. The OP also raised question regarding jurisdiction and objected that the complainants are not the Consumers.

4. The appeal was preferred by the OP before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and directed the complainants to accept the refund of the deposited amount, i.e. Rs.13,50,000/- mentioned in fax message (Ex.C-5), per letter dated 28.10.2012 and dismissed the complaint of the Complainants.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners/complainants vehemently argued that the petitioners want to have benefit of his own mistake. He contended that they could not prepare the flat within two years. They also did not perform part of the agreement between the parties. The petitioners are poor persons and they should be accommodated somewhere either in the flat which was allotted to them or any other flat available in any colony of the OP.

6. We are unable to clap any importance with all these arguments. It is generally alleged that the builders deal with such like scheme in a lackadaisical manner. If, in case, the allottees pay the installments in time and do not waddle out of the commitments made in the agreement or otherwise, there may not be delay for construction of house. The allottee has a right as well as a duty. His right is to get the house in time and his duty is to pay the instalments on the nail. The allottees cannot blame the builders on this ground only because the delay is caused by inaction on their part. The State Commission was pleased to note:-

'14. Be that as it may, even if this submission is accepted for the arguments sake they cannot ask to receive balance payment without interest because as already mentioned above they defaulted in making balance payment. When they are not paying further installments in time, it cannot be alleged by them that there was any fault on the part of O.P. As per O.P. the complainants were asked several times to deposit remaining amount and execute agreement, but, to no use. Ultimately the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 28.10.2012. After the year 2008 complainants did not deposit a single penny and are asking to accept amount without interest. Had they paid remaining installments regularly then it could have been a different matter. Had there been one or two defaults and reminders had not been issued to them then it could have been a diff

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

erent matter. When the complainants are chronic defaulter they cannot ask for accepting remaining amount about flat No.411, allotment of which is already cancelled vide letter dated 10.11.2012'. 7. The order passed by the State Commission cannot be faulted. However, we direct the OP to refund Rs.13,50,000/- and pay interest @12% from 29.06.2015, when the State Commission rendered the order, till its realization. The Revision Petition stands disposed of.
O R