Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/787/2021

Manjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Directors & Promoters, M/s SBP Housing Group - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/787/2021
Date of Institution	:	28/10/2021
Date of Decision	:	30.10.2024

 

Manjeet Singh. Flat No. 60 B, Sector 44 A. Chandigarh - 160047.

Complainant

Versus

 

1. Directors & Promoters, M/s SBP Housing Group, Regd Office at Plot No. 1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Ind. Area, JLPL Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Punjab)

2. Directors & Promoters, M/s Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Regd Office at 1st Floor, SCO 146-148, Sector 43. Chandigarh

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant booked unconstructed flat NO.1202 in the project of the OP builder  by paying a total booking amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and executed Agreement dated 27.2.2018 and as per agreement the OP builder agreed to deliver the possession of the flat by December 2018. The complainant also availed loan of Rs.19,96,689/-. The complainant also paid Rs.46,689/-  towards Insurance. On demand by the OPs a sum of 3,36,400/- was disbursed on 22.11.2018 and other sum of 3,36,700/- was disbursed by the Bank on 29.01.2019 another sum of Rs.2,30.000/-on 02.08.2019. Thus, totaling to Rs.9,03,100/-. Inspite of the above-mentioned payments the construction was not started by the OPs.  The complainant sent a legal notice Annexure E to the OPs but to no avail. The complainant then met Mr. Raman Singa promoter on 25.9.2019 regarding delay in delivery of possession of flat and he offered to upgrade the flat to 918 Sq. Ft. at a discounted rate of Rs. 28.50 Lac to which the complainant agreed and booked the newly offered flat measuring 918 Sq. Ft. by paying an amount of Rs 25,000/-on 02.10.2019. The complainant approached the United Bank of India, Sector 17. Chandigarh Branch to enhance loan facilities and change in security but his request was declined by the Bank. Subsequently. "SBP" office on behalf of complainant approached Canara Bank and it was informed to the complainant by "SBP office that Canara Bank has stated that in order to avail loan from them previous loan with United bank of India has to be closed. Acting on the discussions between Canara Bank and "SBP" office, SBP deposited only Rs.9,58,325/- with United Bank of India on 26.05.2020 instead of Rs. 9,82,100/- to close the loan account and  informed the complainant that the remaining amount shall be adjusted against the amount of the new flat measuring 918 sq fts.  The SBP have not till date executed any agreement to sell with regards to the new flat measuring 918 sq fts for which an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 02.10.2019 towards difference of booking amount between the earlier flat booked and the new flat offered, which by itself is in violation of law as per the relevant provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995. The complainant has till date suffered pecuniary loss of Rs.3,37,491.86  and despite of request the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the flat and nor refunded the paid amount. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The OPs in their reply stated that the complainant is himself defaulter in payment of installments and per Agreement to sell possession was subject to various terms and conditions including the timely payment to be made by the Complainant and reasonable extension of time for the delivery. However, the Complainant has miserably failed to release the payments as and when it fell due. Denying any deficiency on their part  all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that due to the negligent attitude of OPs he had to suffer loss of Rs.3,37,491.86 and hence prayed for the refund of the same alongwith interest and the costs of litigation. However, the counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement dated 28.10.2024 stated that he does not press the prayer/claim for the insurance amount as mentioned in para No.16(5).
7. It is an admitted fact as well as evident from page Nos.31, 32,33 and 34 of the paperbook that the amount of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.40,000/-, 25,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-  respectively  was paid by the complainant towards the booking amount of the  flat in question.  It is also matter of record  that neither the possession of the flat in question was offered to the complainant nor the amount paid by him has been refunded  and OPs have illegally retained the hard earned money of the complainant since 2018 till date.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs, who are not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit(s) as promised, have no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant. 
9.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation.  Hence, there is deficiency on the part of the OPs and they are liable to refund the deposited amount.
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹2,40,000/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of deposit till onwards
2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant/s as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the OP/OPs/jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
13.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
30.10/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
MP/Ls			Member