Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/271/2023

RAVINDER KUMAR AHLUWALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIRECTOR, CHANDIGARH ROYAL CITY, PROMOTERS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV GUPTA & RIPUDAMAN SINGH

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/271/2023
Date of Institution	:	22.5.2023
Date of Decision	:	6/03/2024

 

1. Ravinder Kumar Ahluwalia R/o House no. 133, Hargobind Nagar, city Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

 

2. Rajeev Walia son of Ravinder Ahluwalia R/o House no. 133, Hargobind Nagar, city Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

Complainants

 

Versus

 

Director, Chandigarh Royal City, Promoters Pvt Ltd having its registered office at SCO 489-490, 2nd Floor, Sector-35 C, Chandigarh.

 

M/s Chandigarh Royal City Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Zirakpur-Patiala National Highway, Village Karala, Mohali, Punjab.

.... Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sanjeev Gupta and Sh. Ripudaman Singh, Advocate for complainants alongwith complainant No.1 in person,
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the year 2012 the OP has launched its project namely “Chandigarh Royal City”  in Karala, District SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab and as the complainant was in need of property  in vicinity of Chandigarh  he booked one plot with the OP by paying an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on 22.9.2012 and  a hand written receipt Annexure C-1 was given to the complainant with the promise to issue receipt of remaining amount later on.  The basic price of the plot was fixed at the rate of 9500/- per sq. yds.  and in this manner the total cost of the plot was Rs.19,00,000/-. Apart from basic sale price, EDC+ transfer fee+ PLC  was extra. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.16,20,000/- vide four cheques dated 22.9.2012. The OP signed an acknowledgement agreement Annexure C-2 mentioning the full and final payment details.  The complainants have also paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque dated 8.10.2012. Thereafter, as the OP vide letter dated 5.2.2013 informed the complainant that the project has been approved by the GMADA and the layout plan  has also been approved  on 31.12.2012, and demanded further payment of Rs.1,60,000/- which was paid by the  complainant to the OP and continued to pay as and when demanded by the OP. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.24,55,000/- to the OP till 23.6.2015 and the copy of ledger account of the complainant is annexed as Annexure C-3.  Thereafter the plot No.355/3 was provisionally allotted to the complainant but when the complainant visited the plot the same was found 6 feet down from the level of ground  and the complainant requested the OP to provide alternative plot  but it refused to provide the same.  Accordingly the complainant filed one complaint to SSP Mohali in 2015. On 8.2.2016 when the complainant applied for the copy of layout plan of the project from GMADA under RTI Act vide letter dated 10.3.2016, the complainant came to know that the lay out plan of the subject project was approved on 8.11.2013 instead of 31.12.2012. In this manner, the complainant felt cheated by the OP. Thereafter the complainant also came to know that the OP has got the sale deed executed of the subject plot by impersonation. After several request the OP finally agreed to refund  the amount paid by him but on the condition that the complainants had to put signature on the compromise deed drafted by them and as the complainants   were also intended to seek  refund of the paid amount, they put their signature in the compromise deed in order to get refund of the paid amount by them to the OP. The OP agreed to pay Rs.22,80,000/- via cheque and an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in cash and the copy of compromise executed between the parties is annexed as Annexure C-5. The OP issued five cheques for the amount of Rs.22,80,000/-  whereas they had assured that the balance amount will be paid in cash within 4 months. As the remaining amount was not paid by the OP, the complainants were compelled to file a complaint before the RERA, Punjab, where the matter was decided by adjudicating officer vide order  Annexure C-6 dated 17.9.2020 . The OP filed an appeal before the Punjab Appellate Tribunal against the said order and in the appeal, the case was remanded  back to the RERA with the direction to decide again as it has no jurisdiction.  The complainant vide his separate statement has withdrawn the said complaint with liberty to file fresh one and the copy of order passed by the adjudicating authority  is annexed Annexure C-7. In this  manner  the OP has not refunded the balance amount  of Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest.. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP  was properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 15.12.2023.

2. In order to prove their case, complainants have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and complainant No.1 in person and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainants that  they had booked a plot  of 200 sq. yards with the OP for basic sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- at the rate of 9500 per sq. yds.  with EDC+transfer fee+PLC  extra  and they had paid an amount of Rs.24,55,000/- to the OP and later on however, it was found that the alleged plot was 6 feet down from the ground level and not having approval from the GMADA at the time of accepting booking amount from the complainants by the OP and thereafter the complainants lodged a complaint with the SSP Mohali and  OP did not refund the amount paid by the complainants and finally the parties entered into a compromise vide Annexure C-5  and the OP had paid an amount of Rs.22,80,000/- through five cheques to the complainants and also agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,75,000/- within 4 months but till date the OP has neither paid the remaining amount nor interest on the already paid amount, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the complainants are entitled for amount of Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest  as prayed for and as is the case of the complainants.
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the complainants is revolving around Annexure C-5 the Compromise deed executed between the parties and the same is required to be scanned carefully to determine the real controversy.
   3.  Perusal of Annexure C-5 the compromise deed which bears signatures of the complainants clearly indicates that  the  parties have amicably resolved the dispute and the complainants voluntarily accepted the settled amount of Rs.22,80,000/- by accepting five cheques  of different dates to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- , 2,70,000/- and  three cheques of Rs.5,70,000/- each and agreed that they shall execute sale deed of the subject plot in favour of the OP or their party as approved by the OP and shall also withdraw all types of complaints filed in the government offices, courts and other other suitable authority for the refund in respect of the plot related to the subject property.  Once the complainants  have voluntarily accepted  all the terms and conditions of the compromise deed and had appended their signature on the same without any pressure from any authority and nothing has come in the compromise deed that the OP has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in cash to the complainants,  it is crystal clear that the matter was  finally settled by the parties for a total amount of Rs.22,80,000/- regarding which the OP had issued five cheques to the complainants and encashment of the same has not been disputed by the complainants nor it is their case that if any amount out of the settled amount of Rs.22,80,000/- is due against the OP. In fact by filing the present complaint, the complainants have breached the terms and conditions of  the compromise deed Annexure C-5 which admittedly bears signatures of the complainant and they had also undertaken through the compromise deed  that they will withdraw  all types of complaints filed in any court/authority for the refund in respect of the subject plot related to the said property. Moreover, when there is no iota of evidence on record if the OP agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,75,000/- within 4 months  from the execution of the compromise deed and further when  the compromise deed is silent about any such term through which the OP had agreed to pay the said amount, it is safe to hold that the matter has been settled between the parties vide compromise deed Annexure C-5  and the present complaint  has been filed by the complainants only  after the said compromise deed  through which the complainants  had agreed to withdraw all types of cases from all the courts/authorities related to the subject property by accepting settled amount of Rs.22,80,000/- from the OP through cheques encashment whereof is not in dispute.
   4. However,  the complainant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hob’ble Apex Court in case titled as Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors, II(2007) CPJ 3 SC and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-  

"9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today. then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B."

 

5. The complainant further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission titled as Vivek Kishorchandra Mehta & anr. vs. Puranik Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr. first appeal No.522 of 2017 decided on 3.10.2018   wherein it was held that if the money remained  for sometime with the OPs   then they are liable to pay some interest on that amount. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

 “From the above judgment, it is clear that if money has remained for some time with the opposite parties, they are liable to pay some interest on that amount. As there was no agreement in terms of payment of interest or on the rate of interest and the complainant himself has cancelled the contract and demanded the refund of the amount paid, I deem it appropriate to allow a lump sum compensation equivalent to interest @6% p.a. on the amount refunded of Rs.40,00,000/- for one year. Thus, opposite parties have to pay Rs.2,40,000/- (rupees two lakhs forty thousand only) as interest on the refunded amount to the complainants.”

 

4. In the instant case admittedly the amount of Rs.22,80,000/- which was deposited by the complainant has already been refunded to the complainant but without any interest though the contract was cancelled by the complainant himself.  Thus keeping in mind the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments,  we deem it proper  to allow a lump sum compensation to the complainant in the form of interest @6%  on the deposited amount of Rs.22,80,000/-  for one year and which comes to Rs.1,36,800/-
5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay an lump sum amount  of ₹1,36,800/- to the complainant as compensation

6. This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 6/03/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member