CM-18515-CWP CWP-28439-2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and others
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral CM-18515-CWP
Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
Documents (Annexures P
Main case
Learned counsel for the petitioner
only issue which arises for considerati
interest which would be payable to the respondents on the refund as there was an inordinate delay in the execution of the project. Learned counsel that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short Commission) by the impugned order
erroneously directed the petitioner to refund the amount along with interest @12% per annum
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short National had also been dismissed
-2024 in/and
Sr. No.124
CHANDIGARH
CM-18515 CWP-28439 Date of Decision :1 Versus
***
)
-2024 -7 and P- on in the instant petition is dated 15.10.2020
. The appeal preferred by the petitioner as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh appeal, Page 1 of 4
-CWP-2024 in/and
-2024 (O&M)
8.11.2024
…Petitioner …Respondents
R SINGH GREWAL
8) are taken on record. -Developer submits that the the rate of
submits
State
(Annexure P-1) has
before the National Commission)
1
within 30 days, limited and confined to the sole prayer that the (petitioners herein)
principal remedy, beyond the period of 45 days provided by the State Commission, as to reasonably enable the appellants to comply with the said principal remedy. The peti
fresh Appeal. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 02.07.2021 entertained the appeal preferred by the petitioner and stayed the operation of the impugned order, however subject to deposit of pri
period of 6 weeks. Since the order dated 02.07.2021 was not complied with, coercive steps were adopted by respondent No.2 including issuance of non bailable warrants.
2. Learned counsel submits that rate of excessive and much above the bank rate of about 9% National Commission and State Commission.
3. Heard.
4. R
Rs.58,15,415/- petitioner. The agreement been executed on
Rs.58,15,415/-
over to the respon completion of the construction complaint befor
15.10.2020 with following principal remedy:
29. In view following directions are issued to the opposite parties:
i)
question, to the complainants, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilit
Certificates issued by the competent authorities, subject to -2024 in/and
be granted a reasonable period for compliance of the tioner, in terms of the liberty granted, preferred espondents No.3 and 4 are stated to have invested for the allotment of a residential flat to be construc entered between petitioner and the respondents had 21.08.2015 and the respondents had paid a sum of to the petitioner but the possession of the flat was not handed dents. As there appears to be an inordinate delay in , the respondents had preferred a consumer
e the State Commission which was allowed by the order dated of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in ies and Completion and Occupation
Page 2 of 4
appellants
(Annexure P-4)
ncipal amount within a
-
interest @12% p.a. is
p.a. as directed by the
ted by the
2
payment of remaining sale consideration without any interest/penalty;
ii)
Rs.5/
question, from the stipulated date of delivery of possession i.e. 20.02.2018 till the delivery of possession of the unit, as ordered above, as per Clause 15 of the agreement Ex.C
it, they shall also pay
deposited by complainants at the rate of 6% per annum from 20.02.2018 till the delivery of possession of the unit in the manner as ordered above; and
iii)
iv)
shall be adjusted from the above said liability of the opposite parties.
In the alternative
event of the petitioner failing
refund the deposit
annum in addition to Rs.65
expenses.
5. The petitioner had preferred an appeal Commission impugning the order of the State Commission which was withdrawn by the learned counsel by making a statement that they will file a fresh appeal restricting their prayer only to the extension of time for delivery of possession
(Annexure P-4)
subject to deposit of principal amount before State Commission
6. In response to the q interest being claimed by the petitioner for the delay in deposit installments/dues by the allottees, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an affidavit along with builder b
10.09.2015 (Annexure P
-2024 in/and
to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession @ - per sq. ft. per month of the actual area of the flat, in simple interest on the entire amount
to pay Rs.65,000/- as litigation costs and other expenses. The balance sale consideration payable by the complainants , it was also directed by the State Commission that in the to deliver the possession of the flat
ed amount of Rs.58,15,415/- along with interest @ 12% per ,000/- payable as litigation costs and other
of flat. Thereafter the order was passed on
whereby the impugned order (Annexure P
uery of the C
-8).
Page 3 of 4
-2. In addition to
, it had to
before National
02.07.2021
-1) was stayed
.
ourt as to what is the rate of of the
uyer agreement dated
3
7. A perusal o being charged to p.a. The relevant extract of the agreement is reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. Mode of Payment of Sale Consideration and Other Charges:
type of Payment Plan the Company may in its sole discretion, condone the delay by charging interest @ 18% p.a on due amount for the delayed period. It is clarified that the acceptance of delayed p
beyond the due date shall be without prejudice to the rights of the Company to terminate, this Agreement, if any/against the arrears of installments and finally the remaining amount if any towards the cu
8. The petitioner from the home buyers for the delay in making the payment. The Commission had
excessive to warrant inter
jurisdiction.
9. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the petition which stands dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
November 18
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Whether reportable :
-2024 in/and
f the agreement indicates that the r
the home buyers for the delay in making payment is
(iii) In case of any delay of payments irrespective of the ayment as well as interest on such delayed payments rrent installment."
-Developer itself is claiming interest @18% ordered interest @12% p.a. only and
ference by this Court
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
, 2024
Yes/No Yes/No Page 4 of 4 ate of interest @18%
p.a.
State
it cannot be said to be while exercising its writ
4