Raj Kumar Singhal vs Ireo Waterfront Private Limited

Heard Ms. Anita Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.

Raj Kumar Singhal has filed above complaint for directing Ireo Waterfront Private Limited to (i) refund entire sale consideration deposited by him with interest @14.5% per annum; (ii) compensation for delay in refund in the form of interest @ 20% per annum compounded on Rs.5965420/- from 15.10.2015 to 30.11.2017; (iii) pay Rs.1500000/- as compensation for loss of opportunity, mental agony and harassment; (iv) pay Rs.400000/- as litigation cost and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The complainant stated that Ireo Waterfront Pvt. Ltd. was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of development and construction of group housing project and commercial building. The opposite party launched a project of plotted colony, in the name of “Ireo Waterfront” at village Devatwal, Dhakha (i) & (ii), Eisewal, Gahour and Birmi, Sub-Tehsil Mullanpur Dhaka, District Ludhiana and made wide publicity of its facilities and amenities. Believing upon the representation of the opposite party, the complainant booked a plot of Type-K, admeasuring 197.52 sq.yds. on 21.02.2012. The opposite party vide letter dated 16.04.2012 introduced a “down payment plan” in which if entire consideration is paid then, a discount has been given on the basic sale price i.e. @1000 per sq.yds and additional cost like PLC etc. were payable at the time of offer of possession. The complainant made payment of entire consideration of Rs.3476415/- (i.e. Rs.352000/- paid by the complainant on 21.03.2012 and Rs.3124415/- was disbursed by Vijaya Bank to the opposite party on 17.04.2012 as loan to the complainant). The opposite party allotted Type-K, Plot No.Z125 area 197.52 sq.yds. and executed a Plot Buyer’s Agreement in favour of the complainant on 16.04.2012.  Clause 11 of the Agreement provides 24 months period from the date of execution of the Agreement with grace period of 180 days for delivery of the possession. As per Clause 11 of the Agreement due date of possession was 15.10.2014. At the verge of due date of possession, the opposite party gave an e-mail dated 13.10.2014, unilaterally changing the date of delivery of possession and giving the complainant an option to surrender the plot in a Special Exit Roll Over Scheme. The complainant has signed the format of exit of his plot and sent it to the opposite party. Under this scheme, the amount deposited by the complainant had to be returned after expiry of six months with interest @14.5 % per annum. The opposite party through e-mail dated 29.10.2014 acknowledged receiving of the option of the complainant. According to Special Exit Roll Over Scheme, 36 months was to expire on 14.04.2015. The complainant visited the project in February, 2015 found that there was no development of the project on the site. The complainant vide e-mail dated 28.02.2015 intimated the opposite party that he wants to exercise his right of withdrawal from the Agreement and surrender of plot but opposite party did not respond. The complainant gave a reminder e-mail dated 10.03.2015 then, the opposite party acknowledged receiving of requests dated 28.02.2015 and informed that his request for surrender of plot has been registered. Inspite of period being expired, no payment was made by the opposite party then, the complainant wrote e-mail dated 10.09.2015 for refund of his amount under the scheme of the opposite party. The opposite party, however, vide e-mail dated 16.10.2015 informed that due date of refund would be end of December 2015. The complainant vide e-mail dated 17.10.2015 protested the e-mail dated 16.10.2015 stated that due date for refund had already expired, but the opposite party did not respond. The complainant gave reminders dated 27.10.2015 & 07.12.2015, then the opposite party replied through e-mail dated 08.12.2015 in which they have stated that refund would be made after April, 2016. The complainant again sent e-mail dated 04.04.2016 requested for refund of his amount and also talked the opposite party on telephone then, the opposite party assured that he would provide a post-dated cheque of January, 2017. The opposite party, however, did not provide the cheque then the complainant gave a legal notice dated 07.04.2017 for refund of his entire amount along with interest. After service of legal notice, the opposite party sought signature of the complainant on a paper that 50% of amount sought to be refunded along with interest before 26.10.2017 and balance 50% would be given on or before 31.03.2018. The complainant by e-mail dated 30.06.2017 informed the opposite party that terms put for refund was not acceptable and asked the opposite party to refund entire amount along with interest without any further delay. Thereafter the opposite party did not respond. Then, this complaint has been filed.

Notice of this complaint was served upon the opposite party and opposite party put up appearance on 14.08.2018 and filed Vakalatnama of Mr. Saymyen Das, Advocate. Later on, nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party, as such, this Commission by order dated 22.01.2019 closed the right of the opposite party to file written reply and proceeded ex-parte. The complainant filed Affidavit of Evidence on 13.03.2019. Although the case was listed several times  thereafter but nobody appeared for the opposite party nor any application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.01.2019.

Heard counsel for the complainant. The complainant has stated that in the project township of the opposite party named as “Ireo Waterfront” at village Devatwal, Dhakha (i) & (ii), Eswal, Guhour and Birmi, Sub-Tehsil Mulanpur Dhaka, District Ludhiana, he booked a plot and deposited the booking amount on 21.02.2012. The opposite party thereafter allotted Plot Type K, Plot No.Z125 admeasuring 197.52 sq.yds. for a total consideration of Rs.3476415/-.  As per demand, the complainant deposited total Rs.3476415/- till 17.04.2012. The opposite party executed an Agreement in favour of the complainant on 16.04.2014. As per Clause 11 of the Agreement, possession has to be handed over within a period of 24 months from the date of execution of the Agreement with grace period of 180 days. The period of 24 months expired on 15.04.2014 and grace period of 180 days also expired on 15.10.2014, but the opposite party has failed to deliver possession of the plot in dispute till today. The opposite party vide letter dated 16.04.2012 has given an assurance to buy back the plot if it had failed to give possession and in that case the opposite party also agreed to pay interest @14.5% per annum on the deposit of the complainant from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, but the opposite party has failed to perform his obligation either to hand over possession within the stipulated period or to buy back the plot. Supreme Court in Experion Developer Private Ltd. Vs. Sushama Ashok Shiroor, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 416, held that 9% interest is just compensation, which is restitutory and compensatory both.

ORDER

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.100000/-. The opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by the complainant with interest @9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.