Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/524/2022

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Emerging Valley Pvt. ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitesh Jhajhria Navneet Kaur

01 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	524/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	01.03.2024

 

                                 

                    

 

Vinod Kumar s/o lt.Sh.Krishan Lal r/o Village Jodhpuria, Tehsil Rania, Disttt. Sirsa, Haryana-125076.

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.    Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160017.

Alternate Address:-

i)     PM46+CJM, Sector 92A, Sahibzada Ajit Sngh Nagar, Punjab-140307.

ii)    House No.317, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

2.    Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Director, Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160017

Alternate Address:-

i)     PM46+CJM, Sector 92A, Sahibzada Ajit Sngh Nagar, Punjab-140307.

ii)    House No.317, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Nitesh Jhajhria, Counsel of complainant Sh.J.S.Rattu, Counsel for OPs through VC. (Defence of OPs already struck off.)

 

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM,PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant filed the present complaint alleging therein that being allured by the representations of the OPs, he booked a residential unit 2 BHK measuring 100 sq. yards vide allotment No.PT-03-GF-07 in the project of the OP known as Premium Trinity in Emerging Valley located at Landran Bannur Road, Mohali.  It has been averred that he made all the payments and the same were acknowledged vide receipts (Annexure C-1). He was also issued Provisional Allotment Letter dated 31.05.2017 in respect of the unit (Annexure C-1).  In pursuance to the aforesaid allotment and after receipt of the entire payment, the OPs executed the sale deed dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure C-3) in respect of the Flat No.PT-05-GF-13 (2BHK) in favour of his wife namely Smt.Meeta.  However, the possession of the same has not been offered to the complainant despite repeated requests and service of the legal notice dated 09.05.2022.  Later on, the complainant came to know that the OP had not taken the requisite permissions from the competent authorities for selling the units.   It has further been averred that the OP had sold the plot without having any permissions/approvals and license from the concerned department.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the OP to refund Rs.21,00,000/- along with interest, compensation and litigation costs.
2. The OPs though appeared through their counsel but failed to file the written version and evidence within stipulated period and as such their defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 10.05.2023.
3.        We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the documents on record.
4. In the complaint, the complainant has made a prayer for refund of Rs.21.00 lakhs but has placed on record Photostat copies of the receipts as Annexure C-1 (colly.) to the extent of Rs.15.80 lakhs only.  The complainant has stated that in response of the deposited  amounts towards the unit bearing PT-03 GF-07 allotted vide provisional allotment letter dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure C-2), the OPs have executed the sale deed dated 09.08.2017 in favour of his wife namely Smt.Meeta for a sale consideration of Rs.5.50 lakhs only in respect of the unit bearing No.PT-05-GF-13 (2BHK). However, the complainant has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence to the effect that he had deposited a sum of Rs.21.00 lakhs with the OPs except Rs.15.80 lakhs. Therefore, the complainant can be held entitled to refund of that amount only and not Rs.21.00 lakhs as claimed in the complaint. The complainant has specifically stated in the complaint that the OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the unit bearing No.PT-05-GF-13 (2BHK)  despite his repeated requests so far.

              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 held as under:-

       “15. Moreover, 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. Although we are aware of the fact that when there  was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency in services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to?”

16 to 21.         xxxxxx

22.          …….. In light of the above, the damages other than consequential loss have to be measured at the time of the breach. However, the aforesaid rule is flexible which needs to be assessed in facts and circumstances of individual case……..”

                The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed as under:-

“The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

5.        The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:-

       “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

6.        Hence, the act of the OPs to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not handing over possession of the unit in question within the stipulated period certainly proves deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice. 
7.        The buyers/complainants to have a comfortable life and having paid their/her hard earned money to have a house, are not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession. Thus, the complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and the complainant is entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid along with compensation.
8.        The OPs accepted the money, but failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainant, therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused financial loss to the complainant, but also caused them immense harassment & mental agony.
9.        In the light of above observations, the present complaint is partly allowed with following directions to the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.15.80 lakhs to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the dates of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization, subject to the condition that after receipt of the above awarded amount, the complainant/his wife Smt.Meeta shall be legally bound to execute registered Sale Deed in respect of the unit in question in favour of the OPs-Company.  
10.         The above said order shall be complied with jointly and severally by the OPs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy.
11.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
12.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 01.03.2024	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER