BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2015
Date of institution: 05.02.2015
Date of Decision: 29.07.2015
Dheerendra Kumar son of Bhagwan Singh, resident of # 50, Sector 41-D, Badheri, UT Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
Bajwa Developers Limited, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Sector 127, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through its managing Director Shri Jarnail Singh Bajwa.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Parminder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund Rs.5,38,200/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum.
(b) pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental torture, harassment, agony and pain.
(c) pay Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation.
The case of the complainant that he has entered into an agreement to sell qua plot measuring 138.89 sq. yard falling in list No.340 T village E10, S 123 Jandpur for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,52,795/-. At that time the OP assured that the complainant is supposed to pay this amount in four installments of Rs.5,38,000/- on 24.01.2012; Rs.50,000/- on 24.01.2012, Rs.2,80,000/- on 02.03.2012 and Rs.2,82,000/- on 02.03.2012. The OP assured that it would get the CLU clearance and Lay out plans before the due date of first installment i.e. 05.06.2012. The complainant alongwith other persons visited the OP and in order to shield the delay, the OP extended the date to 30.07.2012 on the agreement and also extended the date of 2nd installment from 30.07.2012 to 15.06.2013. He did not find any development and kept waiting an intimation from the OP regarding the development of the area and possession of the plot in question. When the OP has failed to develop and intimate the progress regarding offer of possession of the plot in question, after waiting for more than two and half years, the complainant a legal notice dated 16.01.2015 Ex.C-2 to OP seeking refund of the deposited amount which also remained unanswered in the hands of the OP.
2. The OP has denied the unfair trade practice on its part in the written statement filed by it and has further admitted having executed the buyers agreement and having received part consideration of Rs.5,38,200/-. As per the OPs there is no specific agreed date for handing over the possession in the buyer’s agreement nor any verbal assurance regarding date of possession has been given by the OPs. The OPs have admitted having received the permission and sanction from the competent authority and taken a stand that the work is in progress and they are willing and ready to handover the possession to the complainant as and when the construction is complete. The OPs have denied having received the legal notice and have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-5.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Jarnail Singh Bajwa, their MD Ex.OP-1/1 and license Ex.OP-1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
6. It is well settled law as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., 2007 (2) CLT 440 that a builder/developer collecting money from the consumers without having proper and necessary sanctions in its favour from the competent authorities has indulged into unfair trade practice. The facts of the present complaint are squarely covered with the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission. On the day of signing of buyers agreement Ex.C-1, the OPs are not even the owners of land in question for which they entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. The third line of the buyers agreement state that the OPs have booked the said land from someone and are willing and ready to sell the same to the complainant. When a person who is not holding a good title in his own favour, he is prohibited under law to pass on the same to another person, being the purchaser of the same. . Once the OP has failed to show the clear title in their own favour regarding the land on which they agreed to built the apartment and sell to the complainant, the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice by signing the buyers agreement. The act of the OP per se being an illegal act in executing the said buyers agreement, is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7. Further the OP has relied on Ex.OP-1 to show that it has valid and legal license to develop the colony and complete the development work as per Ex.OP-1 and therefore, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on its part.
8. We have perused the contents of Ex.OP-1 and found that the license in favour of the OP has been issued by the competent authority to develop the residential colony at village Chando Gobindgarh, SAS Nagar. The said license in favour of the OP is of no help to it as the complainant has never booked a plot in the said project. The complainant as per Ex.C-1 i.e. buyers agreement has paid the consideration for purchase of plot in village Jandpur which is entirely a different location and a separate project of the OP. By relying on a wrong sanction, to prove its case the OP has misled not only the complainant but this Forum too. The act of the OP in this regard is again cannot be treated to be just and fair but an act of unfair trade practice indulged by it to misrepresent and mislead the parties.
9. Therefore, the complainant deserves to receive back his deposited amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. from the dates of respective deposit till realisation. The grant of said rate of interest on the deposited amount is in consonance with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Punjab state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Brigadier B.S. Taunque (Retd.) & others Vs. M/s. Sangeetashree Builders & Developers International Private Limited & Others, 2014(2) CLT 401.
10. The complaint, therefore, is allowed with the following directions to the Os:
(a) to refund to the complainant the total deposited amount of Rs.5,38,200/- (Rs. Five lacs thirty eight thousand two hundred only) with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realisation.
(b) to pay to the complainant lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 29, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
