Today Homes Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs O.P. Ratra , Harmeet Ratra

THE Revision Petition is filed against the impugned order of Haryana State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, State Commission, Haryana) in First Appeal Number 143 of 2012 against the Consumer Complaint No. 722/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon(in short District Consumer Forum). The Facts in Brief are these.

THE Respondents/Complainants One Mr. O.P. Ratra and Mrs. Harmeet Ratra had booked two floors in the project of Petitioner/Opposite Party units bearing No. 86 at Ground Floor and First Floor, Blossom-II at Sector-51, Gurgaon. The Complainants wrote a letter on 04.08.2005 to the Petitioner and sought concession of Rs.3,00,000/- for the direct booking and deposited Rs.59,40,000/- as a down payment plan for the two floors in total. As per Agreement entered between the Complainants and Opposite Party the possession of unit was to be delivered within 21 Months but the OP offered possession along with final demand notice on 13/8/2007 for the same of Rs.8,28,094/- of 29 months as detailed below:. 1. Total Sale Consideration: Rs. 65,07,000/- 2. Early Payment discounts (if applicable) Rs.60,000/- 3. Amount received till date Rs.59,40,000/- 4. Balance Payable Rs.5,07,000/- 5. Interest on delayed payment, if any Rs.2,96,094/- 6. Maintenance Security Rs.25,000/-

The Complainants did not accept the above said offer because of delay of 29 months and by various reasons like the Units and Blossoms II, Complex were (i) not habitable (ii) nor in a capacity of ready to move in with no facilities/utilities, horticulture, water and power supply (iii) no motorable inside roads and proper entry of the complex from the main road. Complainants further alleged that the demand of the OP with respect to interest of Rs.2,96,094/- was wrong as per their letter dated 04.08.2005. OP stated that the delay in offering the possession was due to non-availability or sanction of power supply by the State electricity board. Subsequently on demand from builder the compliant cleared the final payment of Rs.5,32,000/-+ interest of Rs. 1,91,094/- in full and final settlement for Unit No. M 86 (GF and FF) in Blossoms_II, Gurgaon and requested for delivery of physical possession of their Units within one week after completing the leftover work. Thus, the Complainants paid a total sum of Rs.66,88,094/- as on 07.06.2008/22.07.2008 including the additional Maintenance Charges (IFMS Charges) worth Rs.25,000/- and again prayer for delivery of physical possession was made. But the OPs further delayed and the physical possession of the Units was given after 41 months i.e. a delay of 20 months and the same was taken by the Complainants on 25-08-2008. As per agreement, the Complainants were entitled for compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft per month for delay of 20 months of the Units which amount to Rs.3,00,000/-. Complainants further sought interest @12% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of each deposit on the total amount of Rs.66,88,094/-. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainants filed complaint before the District Forum.

THE District Forum dismissed the Complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum the Complainants have preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission heard both the parties wherein the Complainants restricted as arguments only with respect to charging of interest of Rs.1,91,094/- by the Respondent-Ops. The State Commission after the appraisal of pleadings and evidence of both parties on record allowed the appeal No.143/2012 with following findings as, " keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to bring the parties at an equal status, we hold the opposite parties deficient in service for not delivering the possession of the units to the complainant within 21 months and further hold them guilty indulging in unfair trade practice adopted by them for charging interest of Rs.1,91,094/- (Rs.91,094/- through cheque No.901953 dated 07.06.2008 and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque No.349123 dated 07.06.2008), which could not be charged. The Complainant O.P. Ratra, who is Senior Citizen, has been put to great inconvenience by not delivering the possession of the flat in time and at time and at the old age of 74 years, he has to run from pillar to post to get justice. Keeping in view that the interest of Rs.1,91,094/- was charged by the opposite party, the same is to be refunded to the complainant "

Against the said impugned order of State Commission, this revision petition.

THE learned counsel appearing for petitioner vehemently reiterated the submissions made before the State Commission. We have perused the entire material placed on record and the contentions of both the parties.

THERE is delay of 87 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay and the reasons sated therein are as follows: "a) It is stated that the legal officer of the Applicant Company, who was dealing with the matter, left the Applicants Company office in January 2013. b) It is further stated that after the said legal officer left the Applicant Company, the whole file of the matter along with the certified copy of the order of the State Commission was not traceable, due to shifting of some files for some renovations in the office. c) It is stated that, only when a new legal officer joined the office in May 2013, that the file was traced back and the matter could be revamped ".

The petitioner did not explain day-to-day delay. The reasons quoted in the application are not acceptable to us those appears to be vague and imaginary in nature.

CONSIDERING the merits of this petition; it is very clear from the documents on record that the petitioner had NOT given physical possession of the units to the Complainants after 21 months from the date agreement but the same was delivered after 41 months. Hence, the petitioner delayed the possession for 20 months. This is deficiency in service. The petitioner tried to cover up its deficiency by taking the plea that the delay was caused due to non-availability of the electricity by the Electricity Department and the possession could be taken without the electricity connection. In our view once the Complainants had paid the entire price of the Units the possession should be given with all amenities. The petitioner failed to do so, which is deficiency in service.

IN our observation the petitioner claim his right to charge interest @ 15% which appears to be unjust and an exploitation of consumers. Hence, Petitioner is charging interest of Rs.1, 91,094/- which was not proper and is an unfair trade practice. As the Complainants are 72 and 68 years old, senior citizen suffered exploitation and in-convenience due to non-delivery of the flat within specified period of time and made him run from pillar to post. In conclusion, we do not find any merit in this petition, as well there is unexplained delay of 87 days filing this revision petition. There is no illegality in the order of State Commission. Therefore, we dismiss this revision petition. No costs.