BARNALA BUILDERS AND PROPERTY CONSULTANTS Vs. ALOK SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Barnala Builders and Property Consultants, against the order dated 18.12.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Consumer Complaint No. 2 of 2014.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint No. 2 of 2014 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant got booked an apartment/flat No. 804 Block-O in Maya Garden Phase II, Zirakpur on 23.8.2010 and paid to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 4,80,000 as earnest money vide receipt No. 502 dated 25.8.2010. Later on it was revealed that OP did not have approval of the Punjab Government for this project, and the OPs have taken a sum of Rs. 4,80,000 by way of mis-representation. Therefore, the complainant decided to cancel the booking. However, the OPs instead of refunding the amount offered a Flat No. 303, Block-F in Phase -3 and assured that this project is being built by them and complainant agreed to purchase the said flat and amount of Rs. 4.80 lacs paid for Phase-II was adjusted for the booking of this flat in Phase-Ill. The OPs assured the complainant that the project will be completed shortly and the possession will be handed over on or before 31.12.2012. The cost of the new flat was Rs. 40 lacs besides Rs. 1 lac for parking space. The complainant got his flat financed from LIC Housing, who paid a sum of Rs. 30,75,000 on 5.5.2012. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs. 1 lac on 30.6.2012. Thereafter, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,26,630 on 21.8.2013. The LIC Finance Company also paid Rs. 2,50,000 in the first week of September, 2013 to the OPs. The complainant wrote various emails/letters to the opposite party to deliver the possession. It was also submitted that the flat was lacking basic amenities. Vide letter dated 2.2.2013, 5.2.2013. 15.2.2013 and 9.3.2013, OPs were requested to provide the basic amenities. However, the opposite party vide letter dated 15.6.2013 admitted receipt of Rs. 36,52,000 and further demanded a sum of Rs. 4,48,000 from the complainant without any reason. However, the possession was not delivered. He was supposed to pay only 90% of the cost before delivery of the possession, which was paid. In another letter dated 26.6.2013, the OPs again demanded a sum of Rs. 4,48,000 and further demanded Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 1,08,549 towards interest and Rs. 1 lac towards maintenance; in all Rs. 6,56,609 was demanded. OP issued a legal notice to the complainant on 2.9.2013 vide which a sum of Rs. 6.53,059 was asked to be deposited within a period of 15 days. In spite of several reminders and requests the possession was not delivered by the opposite party to the complainant and therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No. 2 of 2014 before the State Commission, with the request that the opposite party be directed to cancel the extra demand raised and to hand over the possession. Apart from this, it was also prayed that opposite party be directed to pay penal charges for delayed possession 5 per sq. ft. per month.

(3.) Opposite party resisted the complaint a by stating that the complainant has been a defaulter as he has not paid the full amount. Moreover, as per the builder - buyers agreement, the complainant was supposed to pay 90% of the total amount, which was Rs. 36,00,000 within 410 days. However, the complainant had not paid this amount before that date. Hence, the demand for interest along with the remaining amount was raised before handing over the possession.