Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/26/2017

Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepshika Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Gautam Pathania, Adv.

19 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

                         

Appeal No.	26 of 2017
Date of Institution	15.02.2017
Date of Decision	19.07.2017

1. Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit, Sahara India Tower, 7 Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow.
2. Sahara India Pariwar, SCO No.1110-1111, Branch Sector 22, Chandigarh.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

1. Deepshika Garg W/o Sh. Naveen Goel, R/o House No.57, Sector-69, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

                      …..Respondent/Complainant

2. Jatinder Goyal S/o Kewal Krishan, R/o House No.527, Ram Gang Mandi, Moga, Punjab (Agent).

                             …..Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Gautam Pathania, Advocate for the appellants.

                  Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the respondents.

                          

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.01.2016 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 (now appellants) jointly & severally as under:-

“[a]  To refund Rs.92,896/- to the complainant along with interest @24% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till payment;

  [b] To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

    [c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-

               The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall also be liable to pay an interest @24% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b], from the date of filing the complaint till it is paid, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [a] & [c] above.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the complainant in response to the advertisement of the Opposite Parties thereby introducing Sahara City Homes Township at Chandigarh, booked a Unit with them on 24.01.2005 by paying an amount of Rs.85,750/- and also paid an amount of Rs.7146/- on 02.01.2006, through Opposite Party No.3 (now respondent No.2) vide Annexure C-1 and thereafter the complainant received letter dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure C-2) from the authorized signatory of Sahara Prime City Ltd., Chandigarh.  It was stated that the complainant was told that the land over 200 acre was purchased, for setting up Sahara City Home at Chandigarh and CLU for 147 acre was also procured.  It was further stated that the LOI dated 16.11.2006 was received by Sahara City Homes Chandigarh in which a demand of Rs.15.9 lac INR per acre for EDC was raised against Rs.2.5 lac INR per acre. It was further stated that the company challenged this demand before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by filing CWP No.460/07 and later through LPA No.112 of 2009, which is still pending. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are not constructing the units, but wants to grab the money of the complainant, as well as other applicants, by filing the frivolous litigation again and again, so that the complainant is forced to seek the refund under compelling circumstances.
3. It was further stated that now the prices of the land, which was purchased by the Opposite Parties to raise the units and shown to the complainant as well as to other applicants, has increased multifold and the Opposite Parties before initiating the legal proceedings, had not obtained the consent/option from the applicants whether they are ready to pay their share of Rs.15.9 lacs INR per acre towards EDC, as per the order of the competent authority. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have filed petitions only to save their skin and not to save the interest of consumers.  It was further stated that even after seven years, the Opposite Parties are neither giving a definite date, on which they will complete the project and handover the possession nor denied for the same till date, though promised to deliver the possession in the year 2007, at the time of booking. It was further stated that the complainant also sent a legal notice dated 19.4.2012 vide Annexure C-3 to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
4. The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and took objections that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is time barred.  The factual matrix of the case with regard to booking of the unit and making part payment thereof are admitted by the Opposite Parties.  It was stated that project could not be completed due to pendency of litigation before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. It was further stated that as soon as the litigation is finally decided, the person to person transfer of flats and fresh subscription can be considered on the price/rate, which will be fixed at the time of launching.  It was further stated that the completion of the project of township always depends on necessary approval of various Government Authorities. 
   It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were already ready to refund of his provisional subscription amount, as per the terms and conditions, but the complainant has denied for taking the same.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties are still ready to refund the same alongwith simple interest @8% per annum thereon.  It was further stated that the present complaint is premature, as no allotment of unit was made in favour of the complainant and the complainant advanced an amount towards provisional membership, only of the scheme, which denotes that, as and when, the project of Sahara City Homes, would be operational, the complainant would be given preference in the allotment of the flat of desired category. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.08.2013.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.
11. Though, it is apparently clear that appellants are deficient in service, by not constructing the units, even after taking initial deposits from respondent No.1. We find that, the District Forum in its order has directed the appellants to refund Rs.92,896/- alongwith 24% interest p.a., which is on higher side, because going by the terms and conditions of allotment of ‘Sahara City Homes’, it is clearly mentioned that the interest of 18% p.a. shall be charged on the delayed payment from the applicants, therefore, we find that interest @ 18% be substituted in place of 24% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum.
12. No other point, was urged, by the parties concerned.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Forum is modified qua relief vide Clause 12(a) and rate of interest in the event of
    non-compliance of order from @ 24% p.a. to 18% p.a., and qua para (b) reduce compensation from 50,000/- to 25,000/-.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, is partly accepted. The Appellants are hereunder directed:-

1. To refund Rs.92,896/- to the Respondent No.1/complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. instead of 24% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till payment, within 60 days of its receipt;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent No.1/complainant instead of Rs.50,000/-, as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.
4. The above said order shall be complied within 60 days, thereafter penal interest @ 21% p.a. on the amount mentioned in para (i) and with @ 18% on the amount mentioned in para (ii) and (iii).

15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

 

Pronounced.

19.07.2017

 

                                                                Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                 

                                                                                     Sd/-                                          

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                    

                                                                                     Sd/-                                        

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

Gp

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.26 of 2017)

(Sahara India Pariwar Housing Unit Vs. Deepshika Garg)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Gautam Pathania, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the respondents.

 

Dated the 19^th day of July 2017

 

ORDER

Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 349 days (as per office report 339 days) has been filed. For the reasons explained in the application and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, is condoned.

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, has been partly accepted, and the order passed by the District Forum, has been modified, accordingly.

 

      

 

Sd/-                        Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                                               

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Gp