AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against M/s Premium Acres Infratech Private Limited (Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and hereinafter referred to as "the Developer") seeking the following reliefs:
Refund the entire amount made to the OPs i.e. Rs. 70,62,700/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of respective deposits.
Compensation for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Compensation for litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that Complainants booked a villa measuring 192 sq.yd. in the project being developed by the Opposite Party Developers in the name and style of "The Courtyard" in Sector 110, Mohali by paying a Booking amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 10.8.2010 under the Construction Linked Installment Plan and accordingly Unit No.59, Golden Villa, was allotted to them on 10.1.2011. In all, the Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 70,62,700/- to the Opposite Parties. Total consideration of the Villa was Rs. 78,40,400/-.
A Buyer's Agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties on 17.1.2011. Possession of the villa was to be handed over in 24 months (18 months plus 6 months grace) from the date of execution of the Agreement.
Opposite Parties sent a letter to the Complainants on 28.1.2012 informing them about the change of Villa from Gold Villa No.59 to Platinum Villa No.8. Complainants were requested to execute fresh documents for change in the allotment, which was opposed by the Complainants as certain fresh clauses were being inserted in the Agreement. Also, the Complainants had paid more than 90% of the sale consideration by that time. Being in dire need of residential accommodation in India and having no other option, Complainants accepted the relocation as offered by the Opposite Parties and the price of the villa was revised to Rs. 86,64,046/-.
By February 2013, Complainants had paid more than 80% of the total sale consideration for the said villa. Last instalment was to be paid at the time of possession, i.e. 16.1.2013, as per clause 9 of the Buyer's Agreement. Despite having received 80% of the sale consideration, only a super structure is standing at the site of the project. Neither the project has been completed nor the possession has been offered to them.
Faced with such situation and under these circumstances, the Complainants have approached this Commission seeking the afore-noted reliefs.
Despite notice, the Developer neither put in appearance nor filed the written version. They were proceeded against ex parte and their right to file the Written Version was also closed on 4.1.2019.
The Complainants filed their Affidavit by way of Evidence.
A perusal of the Complaint shows that the there is a specific pleading in the main body of the Complaint that the Complainants had paid an amount of Rs. 70,62,700/- to the Opposite Parties for purchase of the residential villa. It is also averred that despite paying more than 80% of the total sale consideration, neither the possession was given nor the project has been completed. It is seen from the record that the first payment was made way back on 10.8.2010.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra [Civil Appeal No. 3182 of 2019, decided on 25.03.2019], has observed as follows:
"..........It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by the SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified."
In the instant case also, the Complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat, when there is absolutely no response from the Opposite parties and the Complainants are entitled for refund of the principal amount with interest. Hon'ble Supreme Court has been awarding interest keeping in view the current market situation, we are of the considered view that simple interest @ 9% per annum would meet the ends of justice, together with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
In the result, this Complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Parties to refund the principal amount i.e. Rs. 70,62,700/- with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the payment is made, together with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 50,000/-. This amount is directed to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall attract interest @ 12% p.a. for the same period.
The Complaint stands disposed of in the above terms.