EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Vs. BALJIT SINGH
LAWS(NCD)-2020-2-79
NCDRC
Decided on February 04,2020

Emaar Mgf Land Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
BALJIT SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

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


JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - Emaar MGF Land Ltd. against the order dated 27.06.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the State Commission'), passed in C.C. No. 263 of 2015.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent / complainant was approached by the agent of the appellant / opposite parties with a lucrative offer of investing into their project namely "Mohali Plots" situated in Sector 106, Mohali. As such, the complainant decided to invest into the project and applied for the plot in the project of the appellant / Opposite Parties. Thereafter, Plot Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 28.02.2011 at Mohali. As per mutual agreement, the appellant / Opposite Parties allotted plot bearing No.1, measuring 610 sq. yards for the total sale price of Rs.1,11,69,710/- and out of the total sale consideration, the complainant paid the booking amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Further, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.22,64,625/- as preferred location charges, which was to be paid, as he had chosen corner plot. It was further alleged that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession was to be delivered to the complainant within a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the Agreement and in the event of failure of the possession, the appellant / opposite parties will be liable to pay to the complainant a penalty of Rs.50/- per sq. yards per month for such period of delay beyond 18 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. It is further alleged that the possession was supposed to be delivered on or before 28.02.2012.Thereafter, the size of the plot of the respondent / complainant was revised from 610 sq. yards to 297 sq. yards.In furtherance of the new application for allotment, the respondent / complainant was issued provisional allotment letter dated 19.07.2012 by the appellant / opposite parties in respect of plot no. 1, sector 106, Mohali alongwith a schedule of payment.On 22.03.2013, the appellant / opposite party applied to GMADA despite being exempted by GMADA from obtaining a completion certificate.On 03.02.2014, the appellant issued an intimation of possession to the respondent / complainant for plot in question after developing all the amenities in accordance with the Buyer's Agreement.The appellant / opposite party mentioned that compensation for delay in delivery of possession has already been credited in the account of the respondent / complainant.Thereafter, the respondent / complainant sent a legal notice dated 13.03.2014 to the appellant / opposite party seeking possession of the unit and for withdrawal of the charges demanded by the appellants in respect of the same.
(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent / complainant filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission being C.C. No. 263/2015.The complaint was resisted by the appellant / opposite party on the ground that intimation of possession was given on 03.02.2014, however, the respondent / complainant did not come forward to take the possession.The main prayer in the complaint was possession and to quash the letter dated 03.02.2014 which was sent as an intimation of possession alongwith demand of interest for late payment of instalments.In spite of the fact that main prayer was for the possession, the State Commission ordered refund of the paid amount alongwith compounded interest @15% per annum.The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the interest can be considered as part of compensation and it is generally awarded in the form of simple interest and currently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded interest @ 9% per annum in case of refund in Kolkata West International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deva Asis Rudra, 2019 2 CPJ 29 (SC) .Thus the order of the State Commission in respect of compounded interest @ 15% per annum is not justified.;


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