Trilochan Singh vs PUSHPA BUILDERS LTD.

THE case of the complainant, in the present complaint in brief, is that opposite party No. 1 is a builder of residential and commercial complexes in Delhi and opposite party No. 2 is the Chairman-cum Managing Director of opposite party No. 1. THE complainant in response to an advertisement and exhibition held by opposite parties, booked a Residential Apartment/Flat in the Pushp Deep Apartment Scheme, at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. THE complainant was duly allotted a residential flat No. A-1, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in the abovesaid scheme, by the opposite parties vide letter dated 11.10.1989. At the request of the complainant, the opposite parties reduced the price of the said apartment/flat and it was agreed mutually that the flat allotted to the complainant would be offered to him by the opposite parties at the revised cost of Rs. 7,38,000/-, which amount was to be paid in instalments by the complainant, as per the schedule fixed by the opposite parties. THE complainant paid the entire sale consideration in respect of the aforesaid flat allotted to him by the opposite parties and had further paid another sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- as demanded by the opposite parties on account of registration of sale deed, water connection and electric connection, etc. plus other miscellaneous works. THE opposite parties issued receipts for the total cost of the apartment paid in instalments from time-to-time but despite repeated requests of the complainant, failed to issue receipts for the said amount of Rs. 1,43,000/-.

THE grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that though the apartment allotted to him was completed and habitable since 1996 and despite payment of the entire cost of the flat/apartment as well as the registration and other incidental charges totalling Rs. 8,24,000/-, the opposite parties have failed to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the apartment/flat to him, despite assurances in that regard by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. In the present complaint, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the flat No. A-1, First Floor, Pusp Deep Apartment, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages alongwith the costs of the proceedings. The opposite parties were duly served and Mr. Amit Roy, Law Officer/Authorised Representative of both the opposite parties appeared before this Commission, but despite several opportunities being afforded, the opposite parties failed to pay the costs imposed on them or to file written version/reply and evidence on their behalf. Therefore, the right of the opposite parties to file their written version was closed vide order dated 31.1.2000. Thereafter, the complainant filed his own affidavit by way of evidence in support of the averments made in the complaint.

We have carefully perused the documents/material and evidence on record as well as have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. G.N. Sharma, Counsel for the complainant in the presence of the Authorised Representative of the Opposite Parties Mr. Mahavir Singh.

THE complainant''s main contention in the present complaint is that the opposite parties have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the apartment/flat allotted to him by the opposite parties and also to deliver the possession of the same despite his having paid them Rs. 8,24,000/-, being the price of the flat and other incidental charges. Alongwith his affidavit by way of evidence the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the allotment letter dated 3.6.1989 (Exhibit P-II, whereby the opposite party No. 1 has confirmed the allotment of residential apartment/flat No. A-1, on First Floor in the Pushp Deep Apartment, at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and has also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 21,000/- in cash, as part incidental payment/earnest money. Letter dated 11.10.1989 (Exhibit P-I) reflects the schedule of payment and total costs of the unit allotted to the complainant, the complainant has also placed on record the original receipts issued by the opposite parties for payments made by him from time-to-time (Exhibits P-3 to P-10). Regarding the payment of Rs. 1,43,000/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties on account of charges for registration and other miscellaneous works, the complainant has in his affidavit by way of evidence, mentioned the draft and cheque numbers vide which the payment of the abovesaid amount was made by him. The complainant has further relied upon the decision of Tamil Nadu State Commission in case entitled Dr. R.V. Shivaraman v. M/s. Chennai Foundation (P) Ltd., reported as I (2000) CPJ 339.

IN the absence of anything to the contrary on record by way of written version/evidence on the part of the opposite parties, the version of facts as stated by the complainant stands unrebutted and, therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding that the opposite parties have been grossly deficient in providing services to the complainant, inasmuch as, the apartment in question was ready and habitable since 1996 as stated by the complainant in his complaint and despite his having made the necessary payments as demanded by the opposite parties, the opposite parties have failed to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the apartment/flat to the complainant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the flat/apartment A-I, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as well as execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants within two months of the receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay interest to the complainant @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties, i.e. Rs. 8,24,000/- from the date of filing this complaint till the date of delivery of possession of the flat allotted to the complainant. The opposite parties will also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant as well as costs of the present proceedings. The present complaint is disposed of in above terms. Complaint allowed.