DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                       Consumer Complaint No.152 of 2016                                                  Date of institution:  11.03.2016                                                Date of decision   :  24.04.2017

Mrs. Jashanjeet Kaur wife of Amardeep Singh residing at H.No.47, Sector 16, Chandigarh.

……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Bajwa Developers Limited through its Managing Director, having its registered office at SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140301.

2.     The Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Limited, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, Greater Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 140301.

                                                        ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri S.S. Randhawa, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Mrs. Jashanjeet Kaur has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant induced by the lofty promises, agreed to purchase 1 BHK apartment No.1409 measuring 450 sq. ft. approximately at Sunny Apartments, F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for a total price of Rs.12,52,000/- which was to be paid in installments on receiving demands and as per the pace of construction.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.04.2011  Rs.1,12,500/- on 30.04.2011 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 20.06.2012. Thus, in all the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,42,500/- to the OPs, as is mentioned on the reverse of the agreement. However, the original agreement executed between the parties was misplaced and on 29.06.2012 duplicate agreement was executed between the parties. The OPs were to deliver the possession of the apartment by 04.12.2012 and were supposed to inform the complainant 10 days in advance regarding registration of the property.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the OPs several times regarding construction of the apartments; however, the OPs always gave evasive replies. The OPs also assured the complainant that they had all the requisite permissions from the competent authorities but the complainant came to know that the OPs had not got permission for development of the project from GMADA thereby the OPs violated the terms of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. There is no development activity taking place at the site of the project. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,42,500/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum; compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment and mental tension and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing reply, in which they have raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; as the complainant has committed default in payment of installments, as per Clause 3 of the agreement the amount deposited by the complainant is liable to be forfeited in case the purchaser failed to deposit the agreed amount within 15 day from the due date. Approvals of the project are under process and it will take time for getting the approval and possession of the flat.  On merits, the OPs has denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/1 and copy of agreement to sell Ex.C-1. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Jarnail Singh Bajwa, its MD Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             It has been argued by learned counsel for the complainant that 1 BHK BR Apartment No.1409 at Sunny Apartment F21 Mohali, Sector 74-A, 117 Mohali having covered area of 450 sq. ft.  was agreed to be purchased by the complainant at a sale consideration of Rs.12,52,000/-.  Learned counsel has argued that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.4,42,500/- to the OPs as per the duplicate agreement to sell  dated 29.06.2012. Learned counsel further argued that the OPs have violated the provisions of PAPRA as without having the requisite permissions/sanction the OPs have received amounts exceeding Rs.25,000/- and executed the agreement to sell Ex.C-1. Thus by selling the flat without the requisite permissions/sanctions the OPs adopted unfair trade practice.  Learned counsel further argued that possession of the apartment was to be handed over to the complainant by 04.12.2012 which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that it stands proved that the OPs have already applied for the permissions/sanctions of the competent authorities and as such there was no violation of the provisions of PAPRA. Learned counsel argued that the complainant is not entitled to any of the amounts claimed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard the oral submissions, addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Against the total price of Rs.12,52,000/- the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,42,500/-. The amount received from the complainant-buyer was required to be deposited in the Schedule Bank, as per Section 9 of the PAPRA. Except the bald statement of Jarnail Singh Bajwa made in his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 that the OPs had applied for the permissions/sanction, no supporting document has been proved on record. Thus, by executing the agreement Ex.C-1 and receiving the amount more than Rs.25,000/- the OPs have violated the provisions of PAPRA which is unfair trade practice. Thus, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount so paid by her.   The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a latest decision in Ms. Sneh Sood Vs. M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 decided on 23.02.2017 has ordered refund of the deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,42,500/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Forty two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund. We also find that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony due the negligent act of the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed.            

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 24.04.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member