Suncity Builders Pvt Ltd Consumer Complaint wherein refund of amount was allowed for delay in possession.
SUBHASH MALIK v. SUNCITY BUILDERS Pvt. LTD.
A complaint was filed by the complainant, Subhash Malik, against the respondent, Suncity Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., to refund the amount paid by the complainant as the respondent had failed to make the allotment of the plot for the complainant. After the first order being passes on 28.01.2020, the respondents had failed to comply with the provisions of the order, hence, on the hearing dated 08.04.2021, the authority, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, issued further directions to follow the calculation sheet provided by the complainant regarding the amount that was to be paid to the complainant by the respondent.
Also Read- Haryana RERA Panchkula Complaint against Suncity
COMPLAINANTS:
Subhash Malik
RESPONDENTS:
Suncity Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
CORUM:
Rajan Gupta, Chairman
Anil Kumar Panwar, Member
Dilbhag Singh Sihag, Member
Also Read- SAVITA JYANNI. v. M/S SUNCITY PROJECTS. – CaseMine
FACTS:
The complainant had sought possession of a property booked in the respondent’s project namely ‘Suncity Rohtak-1’ in 2005. Allotment agreement was executed between the parties on 27.01.2009. complainant was allotted plot no. D-71, Block- D, measuring 401.856 sq. yards. Till date the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 21,01,707/- against basic sale price of Rs.18,88,723/-. As per allotment agreement deemed date of possession was in January 2010. However, the respondent sent offer of possession dated 01.02.2016 along with additional demand. Respondent further issued a final notice dated 04.02.2019 demanding a sum of Rs. 17,48,112/- from the complainant, who claimed that he had never been served upon such notice. He alleged that despite paying entire money as per demands raised by the respondents, the respondent cancelled the allotment of the plot due to nonpayment of dues. Besides, the respondent has also not returned an amount of Rs. 21,01,707/- already paid by the complainant to the respondent.
Also Read- Mrs.Babita Bansal v. M/s Suncity Projects.Pvt.Ltd
JUDGEMENT DATED 28.01.2020:
In the order dated 28.01.2020, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority was of the opinion that the complainant had paid the booking amount of Rs. 5.64 lacks to the respondent in the year 2005 and the rest of the amount by 2010. The respondent used all the money of the complainant for such a long period of time. The deemed date of possession was in January 2010, but the actual offer of possession was made in 2016. The respondents instead of having a meeting with the complainants to settle the matter, started charging additional interest @ 24% per annum and increased their demand. No formal cancellation was conveyed to the complainant.
The cancellation of the plot is not justified neither a formal cancellation shall be deemed to have been done since the respondents are still retaining the entire amount payable by the complainant.
Also Read-HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY ..
The authority quashed the cancellation notice served by the respondents. The complainant shall give their calculations for payment of compensation by the respondents for delay cased in delivery of the plot. The respondents shall file their claims in respect of the interest payable by the complainant for the delayed payments of the justified amount.
After receipt of the claims of both the parties the authority disposed of the matter after showing the amount payable by each party. The respondent shall offer a possession letter to the complainant. The actual possession, however, shall be handed over after the amount payable and receivables are settled by the authority.
Also Read- Sandeep Kumar Goel vs Suncity Project Pvt.Ltd. on 18 July
JUDGEMENT DATED 08.04.2021:
However, the learned counsel for the complainant appraised the authority that no effective measures have taken by the respondent in compliance of order dated 28.01.2020. The complainant was not issued any offer of possession, nor any calculation sheet had been submitted by the respondents.
Since the respondent is unable to offer possession to the client, the complainant can only claim for refund from the respondent company.
In the later hearing, the authority upheld the observations of the order dated 28.01.2020 and directed the respondent to issue offer of possession to the complainant of the allotted plot within 30 days of upholding of the current order along with delay interest of Rs. 17,85,474/-. Since the respondents refused to file his own calculation sheet in compliance of the said order, the calculations submitted by the complainant was to be awarded to the complainant.
Also Read- Search Judgements – Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
This post is written by Gopika Thakur.
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.
More on 99888-17966.
