Last Updated on February 20, 2022 by Satish Mishra
Post covers delay in possession complaint for refund against Best Zone Builders & Developers in Consumer Court along with Compensation.
Best Zone Builders & Developers Consumer Complaint for Refund.
This post is a summary of judgment wherein the complainants have filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties, seeking the following directions to them: i) to refund the total deposited amount of ₹20,49,440/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till payment; ii) to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000/-, on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainants; and iii) to pay ₹55,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Court Held, “The following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 to 5: i) to refund the amount of ₹20,49,440/- along with compensation on account of financial loss suffered by the complainants, for depriving them of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with opposite parties No.1 to 5, at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of actual realization. ii) to pay ₹33,000/-, as compensation towards the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants, including the litigation expenses.”
Also Read- BEST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER COMPLAINT
Judgment digest
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.103 of 2019
Date of institution: 04.02.2019
Date of decision: 24.09.2019
Complainants:
1.Renu Bajaj W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Bajaj, R/o # 951, Sector 79, Mohali, Punjab-160079.
- Rakesh Kumar Bajaj S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Bajaj, Resident of #951, Sector 79, Mohali, Punjab.
Mobile No.8146800951 & 9779743244 E-mail:[email protected]
Also Read- Renu Bajaj & Anr. vs Best Zone Builders & Developers
Opposite Parties:
- Best Zone Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.517, 2nd Floor, Sector 70, Mohali, Punjab, through its Managing Director/ Director/Authorized Signatory.
- Best Zone Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Orchid Green Mohali, Shop No.1-2-3, Orchid Greens, Sector 115, Mohali, Punjab- 140307, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
- Best Zone Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCF 4, Shivalik City, Sector 127, Kharar-Landran Road, Mohali Kharar Mohali, PB 140301, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.
- Manmohan Singh, Director of Best Zone Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Village Khuni Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar-140114, PB.
- Paramjit Kaur, Director of Best Zone Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., House No.64, Village Khuni Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar-140114, PB.
(Ph.No. & E-mail of OPs No.1 to 5) Ph.No.0172-5053599 E-mail:[email protected]
- Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited Registered Office at M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Ph.No.098739 97166, 98107 86555, 98992 72885. E-mail:[email protected]
Quorum:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member.
Also Read- Gurman Singh v. Best Zone Builders & Developers – CaseMine
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
the complainants wanted to purchase a residential apartment for their self living. They approached the opposite parties in December 2013, who informed them that their project namely “Orchid Green” for providing apartments at Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 115, Mohali was on full swing and the basic amenities such as electricity, roads, water, sanitation, fully developed parks, electric poles, etc. would be completed/provided. Believing their representations, the complainants submitted an application form to them, along with ₹2,00,000/-, on 08.01.2014. Apartment Allottee Arrangement (in short, “Agreement”) was executed between the parties on 28.01.2014, vide which apartment No.0-101, Block No. O, 1st Floor, Type 2 BHK, in the above-noted project was allotted to the complainants. As per Clause 5.1 of the said agreement, physical possession of the said unit was to be delivered within 36 months, with an extended period of 6 months, from the date of execution of the agreement.
Also Read- Builder told to refund Rs45 lakh to consumer – Tribune India
The complainants obtained a loan of ₹16,00,000/- from opposite party No.6, vide Loan Sanction Letter dated 31.03.2014, and Tripartite Agreement was also executed on 02.04.2014. The complainants paid a total sum of ₹20,49,440/- to opposite parties No.1 to 5, as per details given in Para No.9 of the complaint. However, they failed to complete the construction, obtain the Occupation/Completion Certificate and deliver possession of the unit, in question, within the stipulated period i.e. up to 28.07.2017. The construction was not completed even up to November 2018. Ultimately, the complainants sent a legal notice dated 23.01.2019 to them, seeking a refund of the deposited amount. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, due to which the complainants suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint. Opposite parties No.1 to 5, in their joint reply, raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable.
Also Read- Mohali builder gets two-year jail for defying consumer court …
The possession was already received by the complainants and after their instructions; the remaining amount was received by the answering opposite parties from opposite party No.6. The complainants paid a sum of ₹1,00,000/- on 04.02.2016 and nothing is due against the price of the unit, in question, except the maintenance and other charges, including applicable taxes. Thus, the complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands. The complaint is hopelessly time-barred. The complainants do not fall under the ambit of the Act. Opposite party No.6, in its reply, raised preliminary objections that it is only a financier and has no role to play with the dealings of the complainants with opposite parties No.1 to 5. The complainants have taken a loan of ₹16,00,000/- from it and as per terms of the Tripartite Agreement, the borrower is liable to repay the loan to it. No relief has been sought against opposite party No.6. Learned counsel for the complainants has vehemently contended that opposite parties No.1 to 5 failed to complete the project and deliver possession of the unit within the stipulated period as per the terms of the agreement, despite receipt of entire sale consideration from the complainants. They paid the installments towards the price of the unit to opposite parties No.1 to 5, by availing a loan from opposite party No.6. The alleged offer of possession, vide letter dated 26.12.2015, Ex.R-1, was just a paper possession, as no Occupation/ Completion Certificate has been obtained by them. Ultimately, the complainants sought a refund of the amount deposited by them, by way of sending a legal notice, but without any effect.
Also Read- Bhupinder Paul Singh v. Best Zone Builders & Developers
Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 5, and the complainants are entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. Learned counsel for opposite party No.6 has vehemently contended that opposite party No.6 has just advanced the loan amount in favor of the complainants for making payment of installments towards the sale price of the unit, in question. As per Clause 5.1 of the said agreement, physical possession of the said unit was to be delivered within 36 months, with an extended period of 6 months, from the date of execution of the agreement. The agreement was executed on 28.01.2014 and, as such, the possession was to be delivered up to 28.07.2017. Opposite parties No.1 to 5 pleaded that the construction of the project/unit was already completed and possession was offered on 26.12.2015, vide letter Ex.R-1. However, a perusal of this letter shows that it was just a formal offer of possession. Opposite parties No.1 to 5 have not produced the Completion/Occupation Certificate to prove that the unit, in question, was completed in all respects for use and habitation of the complainants.
Also Read- Kharar builders get two-year rigorous imprisonment in cheque
Judgment:
In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed against opposite parties No.1 to 5, and the same is dismissed against opposite party No.6. The following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1 to 5: i) to refund the amount of ₹20,49,440/- along with compensation on account of financial loss suffered by the complainants, for depriving them of the utilization of the said amount during the period it remained with opposite parties No.1 to 5, at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of actual realization. It is made clear that the charge of opposite party No.6 on the property would only to the extent of amount, if any, remains to be repaid by the complainants, that too if it is informed by opposite party No.6 to the complainants as well as opposite parties No.1 to 5; and ii) to pay ₹33,000/-, as compensation towards the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants, including the litigation expenses.
Also Read- Mrs. Satvinder Kaur vs Best Zone Builders And Developer
For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
For more info, call 9988817966.
