12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

NATIONALCONSUMERDISPUTESREDRESSALCOMMISSION
NEWDELHI

CONSUMERCOMPLAINTNO.144OF2011
WITH
INTERIMAPPLICATIONNO.4016OF2013
(FORDIRECTIONS)

1.SubhashChanderMahajan
S/o.LateGianChandMahajan
R/o.2921A,BlockC1
SushantLok1,Gurgaon122001

2.RituMahajan
D/o.Sh.SubhashChanderMahajan
R/o.2921A,BlockC1
SushantLok1,Gurgaon122001Complainants

Vs.
ParsvnathDevelopersLtd.
ThroughitsManagingDirector
6thFloor,ArunachalBuilding
19,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhiOppositeParty

CONSUMERCOMPLAINTNO.200OF2011
WITH
INTERIMAPPLICATIONNO.4947OF2013
(FORDIRECTIONS)

AbhishekKumarDwivedi
S/o.BabuLalDubey
(ThroughPowerofAttorneyHolderBabuLalDubey)
R/o.47,DharamveerNagarColony
Susuwahi,Varanasi221005(UttarPradesh)Complainant

Vs.

ParsvnathDevelopersLtd.
ThroughitsManagingDirector
6thFloor,ArunachalBuilding
19,BarakhambaRoad,NewDelhiOppositeParty

BEFORE:
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

1/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

HONBLEMR.JUSTICEJ.M.MALIK,PRESIDINGMEMBER
HONBLEDR.S.M.KANTIKAR,MEMBER

FortheComplainantsinbothcases:Mr.SaurabhJain,Advocate
FortheOppositePartyinbothcases:Ms.Rosetta,Advocate

PRONOUNCEDON_05.05.2014
ORDER

JUSTICEJ.M.MALIK
1. This order shall decide two cases detailed above. The facts of both the
casesandlawpointsinvolvedhereinaresimilar.Therefore,boththesecasesare
beingdecidedthroughacommonjudgment.
2. The case of the complainants, Sh. Subhash Chander Mahajan and Sh.
Aditya Mahajan, in complaint No. 144 of 2014 is this. They booked a ThreeBed
Room residential Flat No. 1402, measuring 1855 sq.ft in the Parsvnath Privilege
Complex situated in Plot No.11, Sector P1, Chauraisin Estate, Greater Noida.
Both the complainants were issued a provisional allotment letter dated
23.02.2007.Itwasagreedthattheflatwouldbecompletedwithinaperiodof36
(thirtysix)monthsfromthedateofcommencementofconstruction.TheAgreement
hasbeenattachedasEx.P2,inthiscase.Itwasalsoagreedthatif there was
delayinconstructionoftheflat,beyondtheperiod,asstipulated,theParsvnath
Developers/OPwouldpaytothecomplainantsRs.5/persq.ft,permonth,forthe
period of delay of the agreement. The complainants made full payment towards
the flat in question in May, 2007, under the Down Payment Plan, PlanA. A
provisionfor10%rebatewasalsoprovidedattheverystart.It is alleged that

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

2/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

theconstructionofthesaidpremiseswasstoppedinJanuary,2008forthereasons
bestknowntotheOP.ThecomplainantstookloanofRs.20.00lakhsinMay,2007
from HDFC Bank for the purpose of making payment towards the above said
bookedflat.Theyhavealreadypaidtheinterestfrom01.04.2007to31.03.2012
inthesumofRs.6,97,230/videreceipts,annexedasAnnexureP3(colly).

3.OPvideletterdated10.06.2010admittedthattherehadbeenadelayinthe
constructionoftheproject.TheOPitself,videitsletterdated22.05.2007,informed
HDFCBankthattheloanwasrequiredbythecomplainants.Thefactumofloan
wasintheknowledgeoftheOP.Thecomplainantwroteanumberoflettersvide
AnnexureP5(colly)(about15lettersapproximately),requestingittoexplainthe
statusreportoftheproject.

4.Itwasstipulatedintheagreementthataninterest@24%p.a.wouldbe
chargedincaseofdefaultinpaymentbythecomplainants. It is contended that
theOPisalsoliabletopaythesameinterest@24%p.a.ascalculatedfromJuly,
2011, in the sum of Rs.80,74,423/ besides the principal amount of
Rs.50,708,998/.TheOPhascausedmentalagony,harassmentinnothanding
over possession of the flat to the complainants. Consequently, it is also liable to
payRs.20.00lakhstowardsdamages,harassmentandmentalagonycausedto
the complainants due to the acts of OP. The complainants are sharing their
residence with their daughter in Gurgaon after retirement of complainant No. 1.
The complainants had made up their mind to stay in their own house after
retirementofcomplainantNo.1.
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

3/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

5.AsperClause10(c)oftheFlatBuyerAgreement,itwasagreedbytheOP
thatincaseofanydelay,theOPshallpaytothecomplainantsacompensation@
Rs.5/ per sq.ft., per month, for the period of delay and therefore, a sum of
Rs.1,02,025/ accrued towards compensation from September, 2010, till July,
2011.ItiscontendedthattheamountofRs.5/persq.ft.isunjustandOPhas
exploitedthecomplainantsbydelayingtheconstructionwork.The complainants
visitedthepremisesindispute,anumberoftimestill29thJune,2011,butdidnot
findanyprogressatthepremises.Theydemandedtherefundbutthesamewas
not given. Consequently, the complainants have filed the complaint with the
followingprayers:
a. Grant a sum of Rs.1,31,53,421/ (towards principal
amount of Rs. 50,78,998/ along with interest of
Rs.80,74,423/) at the rate of 24% per annum compounded
along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 24%
perannumcompoundedtillthedateofactualrealizationofthe
payment.
b.GrantasumofRs.1,02,025/ towards compensation at the
rateofRs.5persq.ft.,permonthontheflathavingsuperarea
of1855sq.ft.alongwithpendentliteandfuturecompensation
atthesameratetillthedateofactualrealizationoftheamount.
c.GrantasumofRs.6,95,817/towardsinterestonloanpaid
toHDFCalongwithpendentliteand
futureinterest,tillthedateofactualrealization.
d. Grant a sum of Rs.20 lacs towards exemplary damages
detailedaboveinthecomplaint.
e.Grantcostoflitigationtothecomplainants.
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

4/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

f. Any other order, relief or direction which this Honble

Commissionmaydeemfitandproperunderthecircumstances
ofthecasemaykindlybepassedinfavourofthecomplainants
andagainsttherespondent.

ThecomplainantNo.1isaseniorcitizenof75yearsold.
6.IncomplaintNo.200/2011,Sh.AbhishekKumarDwivedi,isthecomplainant
in this case. The facts of this case are almost similar to that of complaint
No.144/2011,detailedabove.However,thecomplainantisnotaseniorcitizen.
HealsogotbookedresidentialflatfromthesameOPon15.11.2007.Hepaidthe
entire money. As per the Agreement dated 24.12.2007, filed as Annexure P2,
whereinitwasexplainedthatconstructionwastobecompletedwithinaperiodof
36months.Itwasalsostipulatedinpara10(a)oftheAgreementthatifthereisa
delay,theOPwouldpayacompensation@Rs.5/persq.ft.,permonth.He also
tookloanfromthebankandpaidinterestinthesumofRs.14,74,756/onloan to
ICICIBank.HomeLoanapprovalletterandstatementofinterestonloanarealso
annexedasAnnexureP3tothecomplaint.Therewasdelayinhandingoverthe
possession, like in the previous case, though, the complainant had paid total
amount of consideration @ Rs.56,02,399/. Ultimately, this complaint was filed
withthefollowingprayers:
a.Grantasumofrs.1,23,37,627/(towardsprincipalamount
ofRs.56,02,399/alongwithinterestofRs.67,35,228/)atthe
rate of 24% per annum compounded along with pendent lite
andfutureinterestattherateof24%perannumcompounded
tillthedateofactualrealizationofthepayment.
b.GrantasumofRs.74,200/towardscompensationattherate
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

5/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

of Rs.5 per sq.ft., per month on the flat having super area of
1855 sq.ft. along with pendent lite and future compensation at
thesameratetillthedateofactualrealizationoftheamount.
c.GrantasumofRs.14,84,756/towardsinterestonloanpaid
toICICIalongwithpendentliteandfutureinterest,tillthedate
ofactualrealization.
d. Grant a sum of Rs.20 lacs towards exemplary damages
detailedaboveinthecomplaint.
e.Grantcostoflitigationtothecomplainants.
f. Any other order, relief or direction which this Honble
Commissionmaydeemfitandproperunderthecircumstances
ofthecasemaykindlybepassedinfavourofthecomplainants
andagainsttherespondent.

7.Wehaveheardthecounselfortheparties.ThelearnedcounselfortheOP
madeonlyonesubmission.ShevehementlyarguedthatthisCommissionhadno
jurisdiction.Theamountswereinflatedbyboththecomplainants.Thiscasecomes
withinthejurisdictionoftheStateCommission.Shepointedoutthatononehand,
both the complainants are claiming interest at more than Rs.80.00 lakhs and
Rs.67.00 lakhs @ 24% p.a., respectively, and on the other hand, they are also
claiming compensation @ Rs.5/ per sq.ft., per month. Both these facts are
contradictory.Thecomplainantsarenotentitledtointerest@24%p.a.Theymust
abidebytheagreementandshouldnotgobeyondit.Insupportofhercase,
shehascitedfewauthorities.ThisCommission,incaseKumariFenny&Ors.Vs.
KavithaV.K.(Dr.)&Ors.,I(2013)CPJ34(NC)(amedicalcase),decided by a
Bench consisting of (Justice J.M. Malik and Sh. Vinay Kumar, Member) and
authoredbyHonbleSh.VinayKumar,Member,heldthatconsideringthematerial
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

6/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

examined above, we have no hesitation in holding that the prayer made in the
complaintpetitionishighlyexaggeratedandnotborneoutbythematerialplaced
onrecord.Therefore,thecomplaintpetitionisdismissed,reserving liberty to the
complainanttoseekremedybeforeanappropriateFourmofcompetentjurisdiction.

8.CounselfortheOPalsoplacedrelianceonV.K.Agarwal(Dr.)Vs.Infosys
Technologies Ltd. & Ors., (2013) CPJ 373 (NC), which pertains to shares and
hasnoapplicationtothiscase.
9.Ontheotherhand,thecounselforthecomplainanthasplacedrelianceon
thefollowingeightauthorities:
1. M/s. Sunil Mantri Reality Ltd. Vs. K. Sreelatha, RP No.2432 of
2012(NCDRC)
2.SanjayGoaylVs.UnitechLtd.&3Ors.,CCNo.344of2012
3. Shivalik Vihar Sites Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gurcharan Singh, RP
No.1413of2012&RPNo.1414of2012(NCDRC)
4. M/s. Omaxe Limited Vs. Amit Mishra, RP No. 2280 of 2012
(NCDRC)
5. Mrs.VeenaKhannaVs.M/s.AnsalProperties&IndustriesLtd.,
FirstAppealNo.155of2006(NCDRC)
6. TheSecretary,SouthWesternRailwayVs.K.Velayudhan, RP
No.454of2011(NCDRC)
7.Sh.J.L.SethiVs.SeniorCitizenHomeComplex,RPNo.3129of
2005(NCDRC)
8.GhaziabadDevelopmentAuthorityVs.BalbirSingh,CivilAppeal
No.7173of2002,(2004)5SCC65.
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

7/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

10. We find force in the arguments raised by the counsel for the OP, in a
measure.Thecomplainantscannotclaiminterest@24%p.a.Theyareboundby
the agreement entered into between the complainants and the OP. It is to be
assumed that the parties had signed the agreement with open eyes and after
understanding its each and every covenant. However, we are aware of a case
wheretheApexCourt had granted interest @ 18% p.a., wherein the money in
respectoftheflatwasreturned.ThiswassoheldbytheApexCourtinthecaseof
K.A. Nagamani Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Civil Appeal Nos. 673031 of
2012,decidedon19.09.2012.Evenifthevalueiscalculatedattherateof18%
p.a.,itwillbemore
thanRupeesOneCrore.

11.Itmustbe borne in mind that there is a huge delay in handing over the
possessionofthepremisesindispute,i.e.,aboutfouryears.TheOPhasmade
attempttofeatheritsownnesti.e.,tomakeprofitsforitselfatthe expense of
others.ThegrantofRs.2.00lakhsorRs.3.00lakhsforsuchahugedelaywillbe
unjustandunfair.ThecomplainantsSubhashChanderMahajanandhiswifeare
compelled to live in the house of their daughter. They do not have any
independent house to live in. Their harassment and mental agony cannot be
equatedbypaymentofafewpeanuts.TheOPhasplayedfastandloosewith
theconsumers.
12. It is true that an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs is wee bit on the higher side.
However, the principal amount plus interest @ 18% p.a. plus few lakhs of
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

8/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

compensationwillsquarelybringthesecaseswithinourjurisdiction.Sowedecide
thispointinfavourofthecomplainantsinboththesecasesandagainsttheOP.

13.Onourenquiry,thecounselfortheOPsubmittedthattheywillallottheflat
to the complainants in the month of June, 2015. This is a huge delay. The
learnedcounselofOPdidnotmakeanyothersubmission.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, we accept
both these complaints, partly, and direct the OP, in CC No.144/2011, to pay a
sum of Rs.50,78,998/ with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of deposit, till its
realization. It is further directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 7.00
lakhs,(@Rs.1,00,000/peryear,from2007onwards)withinaperiodof90days
from the date of this order, for harassment, mental agony, anguish, frustration,
angerandsadness,otherwise,aftertheexpiryof90days,itwillcarryinterest@
24%p.a.tillitsrealization.WealsograntasumofRs.2,00,000/towardscostsof
thiscase.

15. In the case of Complaint No.200/2011, we direct OP to pay the

complainant, Sh. Abhishek Kumar Dwivedi, a sum of Rs.56,02,399/, along with
interest@18%p.a,fromthedateofdeposit,tillitsrealization.Heisalsogranted
compensationinthesumofRs.7.00lakhs,(@Rs.1,00,000/peryear,from2007
onwards)withinaperiodof90daysfromthedateofthisorder,forharassment,
mental agony, anguish, frustration, anger and sadness, otherwise, after the expiry
of90days,itwillcarryinterest@24%p.a.,tillitsrealization.Wefurthergranthim
asumofRs.2,00,000/towardscostsofthiscase.
http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

9/10

12/9/2015

164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

...
(J.M.MALIK,J.)
PRESIDINGMEMBER

...
(DR.S.M.KANTIKAR)
MEMBER

dd/1&2

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0014051310552304CC14411.htm

10/10