N Suryanarayanan vs Prudential Engineers Builders

COMPLAINANT booked a flat in the project of first opposite party of which opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners. COMPLAINANT was allotted flat No. 1003, at Prudential Pavan Apartments, 686/1, B.C. 16th Main, HAL, 2nd Stage, Kodhali, Bangalore. Total area of the flat comprised 1308 sq. ft. and cost was Rs. 1225/ - per sq. ft. On various dates complainant paid Rs. 14,05,986/ -. A sale agreement was duly entered into. As a matter of fact, complainant took loan from Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance Limited for purchase of the flat. It is not necessary to set out the details given in the complaint as to how payments have been made by the complainant except to note that opposite parties did not complete the project and did not hand over possession of the flat to the complainant as agreed. When the complainant asked for refund of the price of the flat it was denied. COMPLAINANT has, therefore, filed this complaint on 26.11.1999.

NOTICE was issued to the opposite parties but they did not file their written version. On payment of Rs. 2,000/ - as costs further four weeks time was granted by order dated 11th March, 2002 and the matter was adjourned to 30.5.2002. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned Advocate who appeared for Counsel for the opposite parties stated that in spite of his various communications to the opposite parties, he is not getting instructions. No written version has been filed and cost not paid. In these circumstances we are left with no alternative but to proceed to dispose of the complaint. With his complaint complainant has filed various documents including the agreement of purchase of flat and the amounts paid and also the fact of his taking loan from the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 26,10,093/ - which includes Rs. 14,05,986/ - paid to the opposite parties alongwith interest on that amount @ 24%, house rent @ Rs. 7,000/ - per month totalling Rs. 70,000/ - and various expenses of Rs. 1.00 lakh.

IN similar circumstances where there has been delay of allotment of the flat or there being any default we have awarded interest @ 18% per annum on the amount paid by the complainant. That includes interest at the rate of fixed deposit and the escalation in the cost of construction. It has been contended by Mr. Prem Prakash, learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant had been paying interest @ 16.5% to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. However, considering our judgment in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar, Revision Petition No. 1197/98, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs. 14,05,986/ - with interest @ 18% from the date of deposits which were made as under : Amount Date of deposit 25,000/ - 9.8.1997 1,75,000/ - 11.8.1997 11,25,516/ - 6.5.1998 80,470/ - 31.10.1998 14,05,986/ - Complainant is also awarded cost which we assess at Rs. 10,000/ -. Complaint allowed. -