RIA GUPTA (EARLIER AS RUNJHUN GUPTA) Vs. SS GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(NCD)-2020-11-35
NCDRC
Decided on November 26,2020

Ria Gupta (Earlier As Runjhun Gupta) Appellant
VERSUS
Ss Group Private Limited Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. BASUDEO RAI & ANR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainants Ria Gupta and Anr. against the opposite party SS Group Private Limited alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not providing the booked flat in time and for not refunding the paid amount on demand of the complainants.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainants booked a residential unit measuring 2,000 sq.ft with the opposite party vide application dated 30.04.2012 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,82,000/- with a construction linked payment plan. Vide allotment letter dated 17.05.-2012, the complainants were allotted unit No. 17B in the project "Almeria" of the opposite party. On 12.06.2012, a flat buyer agreement was executed between the complainants and the opposite party. As per clause 8 of the said agreement, the opposite party was under an obligation to complete the project and hand over the possession of the said unit within 36 months i.e. on or before 12.06.2015. The complainants also obtained a housing loan from the bank for Rs.60 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 18.09.2013 to ensure timely payment as per the payment schedule. It has been averred that till May 2017, the complainants have paid an amount of Rs.17,98,825/- in the form of pre-EMI, other incidental charges and EMIs to the bank. Despite the payment of Rs.1,04,03,462/- towards the total sale consideration of the unit by the complainants, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the said unit within the stipulated time as per the agreement. The complainants sent a legal notice dated 19.02.2016 to the opposite party requesting to refund the entire amount paid by them along with interest as there was no progress in the project. Seeing no response from the opposite party, the complainants again sent another notice dated 05.03.2016 reiterating their request for refund. The opposite party replied the said notice vide their letter dated 24.05.2016 with the allegations against the complainants that they are the defaulters and they have not paid the total amount as per the payment schedule. The complainants then again replied on 10.06.2016 and 19.05.2017 but there was no response from the opposite party. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint before this Commission with the following prayers: (a) direct the Opposite Party to handover possession of the said Unit immediately alongwith delayed interest @18% per annum from due date of possession, i.e. 12.06.2015 till date of actual possession; or (b) in the alternative direct the Opposite Party to refund the entire consideration amount of Rs.1,04,03,462/- (Rupees One Crore Four Lac three Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Two only) to the Complainants alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of respective payments till its full realization; (c) also direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.17,98,825/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five only) alongwith interest @18% per annum to the Complainants for the exhorbitant amounts paid to HDFC Limited in the form of Pre-EMI, incidental charges, additional investment and EMI for availing loan facility till date, to pay consideration to the Opposite Party for the period from 2013 to 2017. (d) Direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to complainants for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants on account of the gross breaches committed by the Opposite Party; (e) award the cost of the litigation; (f) in that behalf pass such other orders as may be deemed fit, proper and necessary.
(3.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement. It has been submitted that the complainants are the investors and not the real buyers of the flat and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. It is further argued that the complainants have defaulted many times in payment of installments and therefore the project could not proceed as expected because the project is built from the money received from the allottees. It has been requested to dismiss the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.