Haryana

StateCommission

CC/217/2015

ACHLA ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.RAVESH

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     217 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution                  11.12.2015

                                       Date of Decision                             07.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Achla Arora wife of Sh. R.K. Arora, resident of House No.926, (Earlier House No.849), Sector 4, Gurgaon.

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Adel Landmarks Limited (Erstwhile Era Landmarks Limited) Head Office: B-24, Sector 3, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh)

 

2.      M/s Adel Landmarks Limited, Erstwhile ERA Land Marks Limited) Registered Office; B-29, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi-110065.

 

3.      M/s Adel Landmarks Limited, Site Office Sector 103, Gurgaon.

Opposite Party

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                                        

 

Argued by:          Shri R.K. Ravesh, Advocate for the complainant

                             Opposite party ex parte.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Consumer Act’) has been filed by Mrs. Achla Arora-complainant averring that R.P. Gupta son of Shri Ram Chander Gupta booked a flat vide registration No.GGN/P&F/966 with Adel Landmarks Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Builder’).  The basic sale price of the flat was Rs.55,20,000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant purchased the flat from R.P. Gupta and got substituted her name against the aforesaid registration vide letter dated June 11^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-1).  Apartment Buyers Agreement dated August 21^st, 2013 (Exhibit C-5) was executed between the complainant and the builder.  As per clause 10.1 (Possession and Use) of the Buyers Agreement, the possession of the flat was to be given within fifty four months with grace period of six months from the date of signing the agreement. The complainant paid Rs.28,38,925/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibits C-1, C-3 and C-4.  The builder without obtaining requisite approvals/permissions by DTCP or any other appropriate authority launched the project and collected huge amount from the buyers.  The complainant prayed that the builder be directed to refund the deposited amount, that is, Rs.28,38,925/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its respective deposit; Rs.1,00,000/- compensation and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.      On January 07^th, 2016 notice was issued to the builder.  Notice was delivered to the builder on January 18^th and 19^th, 2016 respectively.  Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the builder. Thereafter the case was adjourned to April 29^th, 2016, July 28^th, 2016, September 29^th, 2016 and December 07^th, 2016 but nobody put in appearance on behalf of the builder.  The builder was proceeded ex parte.   

3.      The complainant Mrs. Achla Arora in her evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Letter dated June 11th, 2012	Exhibit C-1
2.	Letter dated August 23rd, 2012	Exhibit C-2
3.	Receipt dated May 11th, 2013	Exhibit C-3
4.	Receipt dated July 27th, 2013	Exhibit C-4
5.	Buyers Agreement	Exhibit C-5
6.	Detailed List of Licences Granted by the Department in the State (updated till December 2015)	Exhibit C-6

 

4.      The only question arises for consideration is whether the builder without getting requisite licence from the authorities concerned, launched the project?

5.      The complainant purchased the flat of the builder from its earlier owner Sh. R.P. Gupta.  Apartment Buyers Agreement (Exhibit C-5) was executed between the parties on August 21^st, 2013. The complainant paid Rs.28,38,925/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibits C-1, C-3 and C-4.  In the Agreement (Exhibit C-5), the builder has mentioned its License No.94 dated September 05^th, 2012 whereby it was authorized by the Director General Town and Country Planning, Haryana for the development and for setting up a Group Housing Colony at Sector 103, Village Daulatabad, Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex, District Gurgaon.  It is evident from Detailed List of Licences Granted by the Department in the State (updated till December 2015) (Exhibit C-6) that the license No.94 dated September 05^th, 2012 was in fact granted to Desert Moon Realtors Private Limited, Gurgaon.  It was not granted to the builder.  Thus, it is clear that the builder by duping the innocent customers of their hard earned money, launched the project and started booking the flats.  The builder without having any license, could not start the booking of flats and obtain money from the consumers.  In Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Limited, III (2007) CPJ 7 (NC) it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission that “in our view, it is unfair trade practice on the part of the builder to collect money from the prospective buyers without obtaining the required permissions such as zoning plan, layout plan and schematic building plan. It is the duty of the builder to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions such as sanction for construction, etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchaser of the flat/buildings”.   If the bookings made and the booking amount is collected, before obtaining the necessary sanctions/permissions, licenses and without getting the necessary approvals, the same amounts to indulgence in unfair trade practice, on the part of builder.  

6.      In the instant case, the complainant by placing on record Detailed List of Licences Granted by the Department in the State (updated till December 2015) (Exhibit C-6) has proved that the builder without getting any licence from the authorities concerned, launched the project and collected huge amount from the consumers.  This is certainly an unfair trade practice on the part of builder and the complainant is entitled for the refund of her deposited amount. 

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed. Adel Landmarks Limited-builder is directed to pay Rs.28,38,925/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five Only) to the complainant, alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for rendering deficient services and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid by the builder within a period of 60 days, from the date of receipt of the order and it calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the builder fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.           

  

Announced 07.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK