AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Appeal has been filed by the opposite party against the order dated 20.09.2019 in complaint no. 127 of 2018 filed by the respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’).
The brief admitted facts of the case are that complainants had booked a flat No. C-1009 in Exclusive-444 linked plan unit no. C-1009 and the area of the said flat was 1070 sq. ft. The flat was booked in the Jaipur Jagatpura Township promulgated by the Appellant advertizing that it would be having all the modern features . The possession of the flat was to be given by 2017. A total sum of Rs.23,21,244/- was paid by the complainants against the total consideration amount of Rs. 34,51,000/-. It was a construction linked plan.
The case of the complainants was that despite the fact that they had paid all the instalments on time, the construction was not completed and the possession was not offered to them till the filing of the complaint which was filed in the year 2018. On these contentions, the complaint was filed with the prayer to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. under various heads alongwith litigation expenses.
The case was contested by the Appellant. It was contented that Appellant had not promised the complainants to hand over the possession in 2017. The Appellant had to take NOCs from different departments and the NOCs were received in March 2015 and, thereafter, there was ban on Bajri imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for that reason, construction work had slowed down for 1 ½ year. It is submitted that there was no intentional and deliberate delay on the part of the Appellant.
After hearing the parties at length, the State Commission had held that complainants had paid sum of Rs.22,69,065/- through Bank and the flat was booked in the year 2014 and the possession was to be handed over in the year 2017. Relying on the findings in the cases of Fortune Infrastructure and Ors. Vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors II (2018) CPJ 1 SC, Dr. Naren P Sheth and Anr. Vs. Lodha Group and Ors. IV (2016) CPJ 292 ( NC), Modi Builders and Ors. Vs. Levaku Usha Reddy and Ors. II (2016) CPJ 344 ( NC), the State Commission issued following directions :
“01. Respondent is liable to pay Rs.22,69,065/- to complainant with 18% interest till realization of amount.
Respondent liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and litigation charges 20,000/- to the complainant from the filing of this case date14.08.2018 with 9% interest within 2 months from this order.’’
Aggrieved, the present Appeal has been filed. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the relevant record. It is an admitted fact that Appellant could not complete the project and hand over the possession within the stipulated period. The grounds taken by the Appellant for the delay are nothing but Force Majeure which cannot be said to be permissible indefinitely. It is argued that due to stay on the Bajri imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court they could not complete the project. These are not the valid grounds for condoning the delay in completion of the project. Even in the written submissions which was filed by the Appellant, there was no offer of possession and no Occupancy Certificate has so far been filed by the Appellant. Findings of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant is, therefore, writ large on the face of it.
It is also argued that rate of interest granted by the State Commission while ordering refund which is 18% p.a. is towards higher side. My attention is drawn to the order dated 06.04.2022 whereby this Commission had directed as condition for grant of stay to deposit entire decretal amount with interest @ 9% p.a. In view of this, the Appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that instead of giving interest on the refund amount of Rs.22,69,065/- @ 18% p.a., the Appellant shall pay interest on the deposited amount i.e.Rs.22,69,065/- @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till the date of actual payment. Rest of the directions of the State Commission shall remain the same.
The Appeal stands disposed of in these terms.