Haryana

StateCommission

CC/6/2016

DR.O.P.SIHAG - Complainant(s)

Versus

ADEL LANDMARKS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

24 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                             Consumer Complaint No.     06 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution                  08.01.2016

                                       Date of Decision                             24.11.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. O.P. Sihag, resident of House No.933, Sector 7, Chandigarh-160019.

                                      Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      ADEL Landmarks Limited (Formerly Era Landmarks Limited) Addresses:-

          (i)  153, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III, New Delhi-110020

          (ii)  B-24, Sector 3, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh)

 

2.      Hem Singh Bharana: C-146, 1^st Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-110017.

Opposite Party

 

 

 

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

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                                        

 

Argued by:          Dr. O.P. Sihag, complainant in person.

                             Opposite parties 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 Dr. O.P Sihag-complainant averring that on October 03^rd, 2011, he booked a flat with Adel Landmarks Limited-opposite party (for short, ‘Builder’).  The price of the flat was Rs.64,00,000/-. Flat Buyers Agreement dated January 02^nd, 2014 (Exhibit C-13) 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 singing the agreement. The complainant paid Rs.35,05,488/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibit C-1 to C-12.  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.35,05,488/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of its respective deposit; Rs.20,00,000/- compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony etc.

2.      Notice issued to the builder.  On July 08^th, 2016, Shri Vineet Sehgal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the builder.  Thereafter the case was adjourned to August 09^th, 2016 and September 22^nd, 2016 for filing written version but nobody put in appearance on behalf of the builder.  Hence, builder was proceeded ex parte vide order dated October 21^st, 2016.   

3.      The complainant Dr. O.P. Sihag in his evidence appeared as CW1 and produced following the documents:-

1.	Payment receipt dated 03.10.2011	Exhibit C-1
2.	Letter dated 07.11.2011	Exhibit C-2
3.	Payment receipt dated 17.11.2011	Exhibit C-3
4.	Letter dated 01.03.2012	Exhibit C-4
5.	Payment receipt dated 09.03.2012	Exhibit C-5
6.	Payment receipt dated 09.03.2012	Exhibit C-6
7.	Letter dated 17.10.2012	Exhibit C-7
8.	Payment receipt dated 25.10.2012	Exhibit C-8
9.	Invitation for allotment	Exhibit C-9
10.	Receipt dated 04.03.2013	Exhibit C-10
11.	Demand Note	Exhibit C-11
12.	Receipt dated 23.7.2013	Exhibit C-12
13.	Buyer’s Agreement	Exhibit C-13
14.	Allotment letter	Exhibit C-14
15.	Letter dated 07.08.2015	Exhibit C-15
16.	Memorandum of Understanding	Exhibit C-16
17.	E-mail dated 18.12.2015	Exhibit C-17
18.	Notice dated 10.07.2015	Exhibit C-18
19.	Detailed List of Licences Granted by the Department in the State (updated till December 2015)	Exhibit C-19

 

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 had applied for flat with the builder.  Flat Buyer Agreement (Exhibit C-13) was executed between the parties on January 02^nd, 2014. The complainant paid Rs.35,05,488/- to the builder vide receipts Exhibit C-1 to C-12.  In the Agreement (Exhibit C-13), 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-19) 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-19) 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 his deposited amount. 

7.      In view of above, the complaint is allowed. Adel Landmarks Limited-builder is directed to pay Rs.35,05,488/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Eight 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 24.11.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K