Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/288/2023

CREDO ASSETS PRIVATE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKUR TONK SON OF SHRI ASHOK VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

Mrigank Sharma, Vikas Sharma & Tushar Arora Adv.

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	288 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.03.2024

1]       Credo Assets Private Limited, SCO No.146-147 and 148, 1^st Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh – 160043.

2]       SBP Group, Plot No.1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140308.

          Both appellants No.1 & 2 through authorized signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

VERSUS

1]      Sh. Ankur Tonk son of Sh. Ashok Verma, resident of House No.1013, First Floor, Tower No.CODI C, City of Dreams-1, Sector 116, Santemajra, Tehsil Kharar, SAS Nagar.

2]       Smt. Swati wife of  Sh. Ankur Tonk, resident of House No.1013, First floor, Tower No.CODI C, City of Dreams-1, Sector 116, Santemajra, Tehsil Kharar, SAS Nagar.    

…..Respondent(s)/Complainant(s).

 

 

Appeal No.	:	286 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.03.2024

 

1]       Credo Assets Private Limited, SCO No.146-147 and 148, 1^st Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh – 160043.

2]       SBP Group, Plot No.1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140308.

          Both appellants No.1 & 2 through authorized signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

VERSUS

1]       Ravinder Paul Sharma son of Sh. Dayajeet Sharma, resident of Flat No.2009, 2nd Floor, Tower COD1-B, City of Dreams, Sector 116, Landran-Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

2]       Anjna Sharma wife of Sh. Ravinder Paul Sharma, resident of Flat No.2009, 2nd Floor, Tower COD1-B, City of Dreams, Sector 116, Landran-Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

  …..Respondent(s)/Complainant(s).

 

Appeal No.	:	285 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.03.2024

 

1]       Credo Assets Private Limited, SCO No.146-147 and 148, 1^st Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh – 160043.

2]       SBP Group, Plot No.1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140308.

          Both appellants No.1 & 2 through authorized signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

VERSUS

1]       Mrs. Parwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Navdeep Singh, residents of Flat No.3028, 3rd  Floor, Tower COD1-B, City of Dreams, Sector 116, Santemajra, Tehsil  Kharar, SAS Nagar.

2]       Sh. Navdeep Singh S/o Balbir Singh, residents of Flat No.3028, 3rd  Floor, Tower COD1-B, City of Dreams, Sector 116, Santemajra, Tehsil  Kharar, SAS Nagar.

  …..Respondent(s)/Complainant(s).

 

Appeal No.	:	287 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	07.03.2024

 

1]       Credo Assets Private Limited, SCO No.146-147 and 148, 1^st Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh – 160043.

2]       SBP Group, Plot No.1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab – 140308.

          Both appellants No.1 & 2 through authorized signatory.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

VERSUS

Mrs. Shanti Devi wife of Vijay Kumar, resident of House No.388, Rampura Phul, Bathinda, Punjab 151103

  …..Respondent/Complainant.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                   Vide this order we are disposing of above  captioned appeals filed by the opposite parties (appellants herein) against common order dated 31.07.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’) vide which all the four respective consumer complaints have been partly accepts in the following manner:-

“12.   In view of the above discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints deserve to partly succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

RELIEF IN CC/106/2021

1. Not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. The maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charge to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants.
3. To pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

RELIEF IN CC/107/2021

1. Not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. The maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charge to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants.
3. To pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

RELIEF IN CC/173/2021

1. Not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. The maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charge to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants.
3. To pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

RELIEF IN CC/348/2021

1. Not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. The maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charge to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants.
3. To pay cost of litigation of  Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) in each case above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(i)&(iii) in each case above.”

2]                The brief facts as taken by the District Commission from the lead Consumer Complaint No.106 of 2021 titled ‘Ankur Tonk & Anr. Vs. Credo Assets Private Limited & Anr.’, as mentioned in the impugned order are as under:-

“1.     Briefly stated the complainants applied for residential flat in the project of Ops for consideration price of Rs.27,37,726/-. The complainants were allotted residential flat NO.1013, 1st floor, tower COD1-C vide allotment letter dated 19.5.2018 by the OP No.1. After making the complete payment the flat in question was transferred in the name of the complainants vide registered sale deed dated 24.2.2020 and the flat was handed over to the complainants. At the time of handing over the  possession, the complainants were told that the project is complete in all respect and the completion and occupancy certificate will be provided to the complainant in short while. It is alleged that the OPs delivered possession of the flat without fulfilling the specifications and quality of work promised by the OPs. Moreover the essential requirement of obtaining the completion and occupation certificate from the competent authorities before handing over the possession to the customers have also not been done by the OPs and consequently the PSPCL is not issuing electricity connection to the complainants and electricity is being supplied through generator by the OPs, which is not providing sufficient load to run home appliances and the same are getting damaged due to low and high voltage.  It is alleged that the OPs have failed to provide basic amenities as per their promise.  At the time of handing over the possession of the flat the complainants agitated to the specifications and nature of fixtures, fittings and amenities to be not as per specification described at the time of booking.  The complainants approached the OPs number of times for redressal of their grievance but no heed was paid to their requests. The OPs charged a huge amount of Rs.24,355/- from complainants as maintenance charges but no facilities as per Maintenance Agreement were provided to the complainants. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.   

2.       The Opposite Parties in their reply vehemently denied that there have been no fulfillment of the specifications and quality of work as promised. It is averred that the possession has already been taken by the complainants on 23.8.2019 followed by the execution of the registered sale deed on 26.2.2020 of the flat in question. It is denied that no electricity connection has been given. It is averred that Electricity Department has already issued NOC/Load Sanction time to time and drinkable water supply is also being made. It is vehemently denied that the facilities/services as per Maintenance Agreement are not provided. It is averred that all the facilities/services are being provided to the entire satisfaction of all the resident of the society and all the due permissions have been duly obtained. It is denied that there is any deficiency on the part of the OPs.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.”

3]                In all these appeals, the impugned orders have been assailed by the appellants on the ground that the once the District Commission has come to the finding that there is no deficiency in the project and all the civil amenities are provided in the project and the project is being maintained properly, then, there was no occasion for it to direct waiver of the maintenance charges; that it further failed to appreciate that the maintenance charges      are levied for the welfare of the residents and for upkeep of the project, therefore, the respondents/complainants were contractually bound to adhere to the terms of the said agreement; that in the absence of any charges, the society would not be maintained properly and civil amenities shall deteriorate; that the District Commission failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 11(4)(d) of the RERA Act, 2016; that the occupancy certificate has not been given to the project not because of any deficiency in the project but due to the fact that EDC have not been cleared till date, which matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and as such, the occupancy certificate has not been obtained till date and that the District Commission has granted relief beyond the prayer clause in the complaints as there was no prayer in the consumer complaints with regard to waiver of the maintenance charges for future.   

4]                On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents/complainants, it has been argued that the District Commission, vide the impugned orders, have rightly directed the appellants not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate and the maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charges to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. It has also been argued that the District Commission also rightly held the increase in the maintenance charges by 50% by the appellants as deficiency in service as they could increase the same by 5% periodically every year. Supporting the impugned orders of the District Commission, prayer for dismissal of these appeals has been made by the respondents.

5]                Before discussing the merits of the case, it may be stated here that in all these appeals, there is delay of 25 days (as per office report 17 days) in filing the same, for condonation whereof, miscellaneous applications bearing Nos.820 of 2023, 816 of 2023, 814 of 2023 & 818 of 2023 under the provisions of Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed respectively alongwith the appeals. The explanation given for delay is that after pronouncement of the orders, the appellants could not appreciate the call of the Counsel. Thereafter, documents were collected and sent to the legal team, who contacted the Trial Court Counsel in the month of September 2023 and after getting the opinion, the present appeals were filed and in this process, the aforesaid delay has occurred. It has been stated that the said delay is bonafide and not intentional. The applications are duly supported by the affidavits of Sh. Krishan Kumar, Director of M/s Credo Assets Private Limited. Neither any replies were filed by the respondents to these applications nor were the same contested. Moreover, finding the reasoning given in the applications for delay to be self-explanatory and sufficient, the delay in filing these appeals stand condoned. Miscellaneous applications bearing Nos.820 of 2023, 816 of 2023, 814 of 2023 & 818 of 2023 stand disposed of accordingly.

6]                After hearing the Counsels for the parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the view that firstly, the District Commission has rightly held the appellants deficient on account of increasing the maintenance charges by 50% as they could increase the same by 5% periodically every year. Now coming to the moot question, to what relief the respondents are entitled to, when admittedly, the appellants have not received the occupancy certificate, it may be stated here that similar issue came before this Commission for consideration recently in a bunch of complaints filed by respective complainants, the lead case being that of ‘Smt. Manpreet Kaur Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd.& Anr.’, Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2023. While partly allowing those bunch of consumer complaints vide order dated 29.02.2024, this Commission observed in Para 28 as under:-

“28.             Now coming to the relief sought by the complainants directing the opposite parties to stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the competent authorities, it may be stated here that perusal of the brochure, Annexure C-1 reveals that numerous basic amenities were to be provided at the project site like club house, parks, fire fighting system, water harvesting, power backup, open green spaces, shopping complex, kids play zone, road, electricity, smart security system etc. However, from perusal of contents of these complaints and the reliefs sought for by the complainants and also from the findings/observations narrated above, it can easily be said that the complainants are aggrieved of only non issuance of occupation certificate and non providing of one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement. Be that as it may, though occupation certificate has still not been received by the opposite parties and also one open parking space has not been allocated to the complainants, yet, it should also not be forgotten that the complainants are in possession of their respective units since long and are enjoying the basic facilities/amenities referred to above, and for maintaining and up keeping of those facilities/amenities, the opposite parties would have definitely been spending amount thereupon like payments to sweepers, malis, security guards, salaries to technical persons who are engaged for supply of proper water, electricity, maintaining roads etc.  Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in mind the principle of fair and equity, if we order the opposite parties to refund 30% of the maintenance charges received by them from all the complainants in these cases that will meet the ends of justice. It is therefore held that the complainants are entitled to get refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite parties from the date of payment thereof. However, the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement is provided and also occupation certificate is received from the competent authorities.”

7]                However, in the complaints filed by the respondents before the District Commission giving birth to these appeals, there was no such prayer made by the respondents to waive of the future maintenance charges but they prayed for return of the said charges along-with interest in the absence of any amenities, completion and occupation certificate. Therefore, in our opinion, the District Commission wrongly directed the appellants not to collect any maintenance charge till the receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate and the maintenance charges and any other maintenance charges so far collected should be adjusted towards the maintenance charges to be paid by the Complainants post receipt of completion and Occupancy Certificate. Admittedly, in these cases also, though occupation certificate has still not been received by the appellants yet, it should also not be forgotten that the respondents are in possession of their respective units since long and are enjoying the basic facilities/amenities and for maintaining and up keeping of the facilities/amenities (as per Term No.3 of the Maintenance Agreement) like common areas, lifts, fire-fighting equipments, electric substation(s), pump(s), firefighting room(s), transformer(s), DG Set(s), water tank(s), car parking spaces, common lighting, boundary wall, compound wall, landscaping, electrification of the said portion of the land, water supply, sewerage, sanitation roads, paths etc., the appellants would have definitely been spending amount thereupon. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in mind the principle of fair and equity, in these cases also, the appellants are liable to refund 30% of the maintenance charges received by them from all the respondents, which will meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, held that the respondents are entitled to get refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite parties from the date of payment thereof. However, the appellants shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till occupation certificate is received from the competent authorities. To this extent, the impugned order(s) needs to be modified.

8]                For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals bearing Nos.288 of 2023, 286 of 2023, 285 of 2023 & 287 of 2023 stand partly accepted and the impugned order(s) is modified and the appellants/opposite parties are, jointly and severally directed as under:-

RELIEF IN CC/106/2021

1. to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the complainants, compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the complainants against the unit in question, from the date of default, till realization.
2. to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the complainants against their unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.i above.
3. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
4. to pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

RELIEF IN CC/107/2021

1. to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the complainants, compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the complainants against the unit in question, from the date of default, till realization.
2. to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the complainants against their unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.i above.
3. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
4. to pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

RELIEF IN CC/173/2021

1. to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the complainants, compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the complainants against the unit in question, from the date of default, till realization.
2. to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the complainants against their unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.i above.
3. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainants for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
4. to pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

RELIEF IN CC/348/2021

1. to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the complainant, compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the complainant against the unit in question, from the date of default, till realization.
2. to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the complainants against their unit in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.i above.
3. to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.
4. to pay cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

9]                Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in these four appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

10]              A copy of this order be placed in the connected appeals bearing No.286 of 2023, 285 of 2023 and 287 of 2023.

11]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12]              Files be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

07.03.2024

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad