NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3558 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1268 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Sushila Kataria
House No.234, Urban Estate Hisar,
Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3559 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1270 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Sohan Lal
R/o village-Sulkhani, P.O. Bugana
Tehsil, Distt-Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3560 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1264 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Bansi Lal Kataria
House No.234, Urban Estate-II,
Hisar, Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3561 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1269 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Ajay Kumar
Model Town, Hisar,
Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3562 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1267 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Harish Kumar
R/o Sector 16 & 17
Hisar Tehsil, Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3563 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1265 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana )
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. O.P.Mehta
Mehta Nagar, Hisar,
Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 3564 OF 2011
(Against the order dated 20.09.2011 in First Appeal No.1266 of 2011 of the State Commission, Haryana)
Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd.
707, 7th Floor, Gopal Heights,
Netaji Subhash Place,
New Delhi-110035 ……….Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Sunil Kumar
Sector-13, Hisar,
Distt- Hisar .........Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioners : Mr. Nityanand Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 27.03.12
ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
These are seven revision petitions filed by Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. against seven orders of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in seven different appeals. All seven matters pertain to consumer complaints filed against the petitioner/Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. All seven complaints were filed before the District Forum on 10.8.2010. All these matters pertain to the same project and nearly identical facts and issues are involved. Therefore, they have being taken up for disposal together. For the purposes of discussion, the facts as emanating from the matter in RP No.3558 of 2011 against the order of the State Commission in Appeal No.1268/2011 are referred to.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/Complainants had applied for allotment of flats in the Project announced by the revision petitioner/OP at village Garhi Alawalpur Dharuhera District Rewari, Haryana. The first payment of Rs.1.5 lakhs was made through a cheque, dated 16.1.2007. This was followed by several other payments leading to total payment of Rs.5.07 lakhs. Despite receiving this amount, no flat was allotted nor was any agreement signed by the OP/ Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, a consumer complaint was filed on 10.8.2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rewari. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the project, itself was not approved by the Government. The proposed outer road of 75 feet width, was not constructed. At the time of booking, the Complainant was told that the Project will be ready in 30 months, but no flat was delivered till the date of the complaint. Even allotment was not made, as promised. No Government approvals had been received for the Project, despite assurance that all necessary licences had been received at the time of inviting applications and receiving monies from the Complainant and other applicants.
3. Payment of Rs.5.07 lakhs was not denied by the petitioner/OP before the District Forum. Assurance of delivery of possession within 30 months was also not denied. However, it was claimed that this period of 30 months was meant to be from the date of commencement of construction. The response of the revision petitioner/OP before the District Forum was that the Project was in progress. It was contended that due to global recession and its impact on real estate market, the Complainant suspected that his investment will not grow as anticipated. Therefore, refund was sought by him.
4. The District Forum observed that despite payments being received from the Complainant, no written agreement was executed between the parties. Therefore, the OP could not be allowed to take advantage of his own lapse and rely upon the alleged terms and conditions contained in the performa for agreement between the parties. The District Forum also accepted the contention of the Complainant that the alleged letter of allotment was never received by him. The Forum observed that there was nothing on record to show that such a letter was ever sent to the Complainant or received by him. It also noted that before filing the consumer complaint, a legal notice had been sent on 1.5.2009 to the revision petitioner/OP in which it was specifically mentioned that no flat had been allotted. This notice was not replied by the OP. Therefore, the District Forum drew an inference that no flat had been allotted to the Complainant prior to 1.5.2009 i.e. the date of the legal notice. The petitioner/OP could not substantiate his claim that an allotment letter was sent to the Complainant on 14.12.2007.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded relief to the Complainant with the following observations:-
“The opposite party has so far been getting benefit/wrongful gain of the amount received from the complainant and from various other persons similarly situated. It is nothing but wrongful loss to all those persons of the public at large and great wrongful gain to the opposite party. It is nothing but great fraud with the public at large.”
6. The findings and conclusions of the District Forum were confirmed by the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission has noted that the OP did not deny receipt of application for allotment and of cheques from the complainant. It was also not denied that the amounts were to be returned with interest, if no allotment was made within nine months. It was also not disputed that possession of the flat was to be given within thirty months, though the OP claimed that the period was to start from the commencement of construction. The State Commission therefore came to the conclusion that the OP/ Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. cannot escape its liability to refund the amount to the Complainant, along with interest, especially when the OP itself was the defaulter. The State Commission also rejected the contention of the OP against award of interest at 18% by the District Forum. While awarding 18% the District Forum had observed that the OP itself has been charging 18% interest from the defaulting allottees.
7. OP/ Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd. has thus filed this revision petitions against concurrent findings of the forabelow. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the two parties.
8. The main ground agitated by the revision petitioner is that award of 18% interest in favour of the Complainant is bad in law and contrary to the facts on record. The case of the petitioner is that 18% interest is not justifiable in this case, as the respondent/Complainant had not paid the entire amount for purchasing the flat. The Project itself is not cancelled and is nearing completion and that the revision petitioner willing to hand over possession to bona fide purchaser. According to the petitioner, the State Commission has not applied its mind while deciding to award 18% interest. It is alleged that there were seven cases before the District Forum and the Commission and all cases 18% interest had been awarded.
9. The reference here is apparently, to the seven cases, which are taken up together for disposal in the present proceedings. In all these seven cases, the respondents/Complainants had paid amounts varying from Rs 3.48 lakhs to Rs.5.07 lakhs over the period 18.12.2006 to 5.8.2008. Refund of these amounts was awarded by the fora below as even the allotment had not been made, nor any agreements were signed with by the OPs/revision petitioners, despite receipt of large amounts. As all these cases pertain to same project and had nearly identical set of facts, award of uniform rare of interest in all these cases cannot be questioned merely on the ground that they are seven different cases.
10. The decision in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65, relied upon by the revision petitioner, has been considered in detail both by the District Forum as well as the State Commission. While awarding 18% interest the District Forum has observed that the Complainant is not only entitled to refund of the money paid by him, but also entitled to receive damages for the harassment undergone by him. It has also considered the fact that the OP itself has been charging 18% interest from his defaulting allottees.
11. The State Commission considered the argument of the appellant against 18% interest awarded by the District Forum. The Commission rejected the argument that as the appellant/OP is a builder and not a bank, it should not be liable to refund with interest. The State Commission has also observed that the appellant/OP cannot be permitted to escape liability for refund with interest when it is itself the defaulting party. We do not find any error in this view taken by both the fora below on the rate of interest awarded against the present revision petitioner.
12. In the result, the seven revision petitions are dismissed for want of merit. The impugned order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the seven First Appeal Nos.1264/2011 to First Appeal No. 1270/2011 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. All seven revision petitions therefore stand dismissed with no orders as to costs.
.…………………………
(V.B.GUPTA,J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………………………….
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
s./-
