Punjab

StateCommission

CC/15/2018

Ishwar Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raghbir Singh

13 Feb 2019

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,       PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

                   Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2018

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution   :  05.01.2018     

                                                              Order Reserved on : 11.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision     : 13.02.2019

 

1. Ishwar Chand s/o late Sh. Shardha Ram r/o V.P.O Jyotisar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.
2. Anil Kumar Sharma s/o Sh. Ishwar Chand, r/o VPO Jyotisar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….Complainants

 

                                      Versus

 

          Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd, SCO 2475-2476, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Director/Incharge/Manager.

 

                                                                                  ….Opposite party

 

Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member.

 

Present:-

           For the complainant         :  Sh.Manoj Vashishatha Advocate

          For opposite party           :  None (Ex-parte)

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

                    The complainants have filed this complaint U/s 17(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OP on the allegations that OP floated a scheme for allotment of residential flats namely Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd  and started promoting the same even before preparation of layout plan by competent authority. The complainants wanted separate residence as independent floor for their residence purposes around Chandigarh.  They booked one ground floor apartment with OP for their own use at Sector 113 Landran Chowk Mohali.  They paid an amount of Rs.8 lac in total (Rs.1 lac vide receipt no.253 dated 01.07.2012 and Rs.7 lac vide receipt no.110 dated 07.11.2012). OP entered into buyers agreement with complainant on 07.02.2013  and total price of the floor was fixed at Rs.31,25,000/- including EDC and IFMS. OP failed to mention any specific date for delivery of possession of allotted unit to complainants in the agreement. After receiving of Rs.8 lac from the complainants, they failed to start the construction work for a long period. They approached OP number of times for showing  the approvals of the project granted by competent authority to it, but to no effect. After receiving an amount of Rs.8 lac , OP failed to start the construction work for a long time and even failed to inform the reason for not starting the construction. On 15.07.2016, OP refunded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, vide cheque no.009692 and failed to refund the balance amount to them. OP further refunded Rs.25,000/- on 08.09.2016 through RTGS to complainants and Rs.30,000/- on 16.06.2017 on receipt of hundred of requests from them. OPs have not even started the construction in the project . The complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP and seeks refund of the balance amount of Rs.6,45,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of deposits till its realization, Rs.5 lac as compensation for deficiency in service and mental harassment and Rs.75,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                 Upon notice, OP failed to appear before this Commission in this complaint and consequently, they were summoned by means of substituted service in ‘Danik Bhaskar’ newspaper, vide order dated 08.06.2018 and were set exparte thereafter on their non-appearance before this Commission.

3.                 The complainant no.1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 (colly) and closed the exparte evidence.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant  and also examined the record of the case.

5.                 From appraisal of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by complainant, we find that OP sold the unit to complainants for Rs.31,25,000/- . The complainants paid Rs.8 lac to OPs on different dates, but no specific time was given for delivery of possession of the unit in the buyers agreement executed by OP in favour of the complainants. The averment of the complainants is that OP has not developed the project by completing the construction therein. The evidence of the complainant as furnished  on oath has established this fact in this exparte evidence. Ex.C-1 is receipt no.253 dated 01.07.2012 and Ex.C-2 is receipt no.110 dated 07.11.2012  have proved this fact that complainants paid an amount of Rs.8 lac to OP. OP executed a buyers agreement Ex.C-3 in favour of the complainant on 07.02.2013 for sale price of the unit as Rs.31,25,000/-. The payment schedule has been prescribed of this buyers agreement on the record. Clause 3 of this buyers agreement Ex.C-3 states that purchaser shall take  possession of the apartment within one week of a receipt of the notice of the vendor to the purchaser and the said apartment is ready for use and occupation  and the completion certificate and occupation certificate has been obtained from the GMADA. As per Section 3(3)(g) of PAPRA Act 1995, It is imperative for the promoter and builder to specify the time for delivery of possession to the allottee. Even Section 6 of PAPRA Act 1995 also enjoins upon the promoter/builder to specify the time for delivery of possession of the unit to the allottee. Whatever the case may be, this is unfair trade practice in sheer violation of provision of PAPRA Act 1995 by OP in this case. Even three years period is quite reasonable for delivery of possession from the date of buyers agreement by the promoter of the project. The buyers agreement Ex.C-3 was executed on 07.02.2013 and at the most, the reasonable time for delivery of possession could be stretched uptil 07.02.2016 subject to force majeure circumstances on the record. There are no such force majeure circumstances on the record justifying the extension of time by OP.  OP further refunded the amount of Rs.1 lac to complainant no.1 by virtue of Ex.C-4 dated 15.07.2016 impliedly admitting their deficiency in not developing the project in a reasonable time. The submission of counsel for complainant is that OP has started refunding the amount impliedly admitting its deficiency in not developing the project, as pleaded in para no.14 of the complaint. OP refunded the amount of Rs.1 lac on 15.07.2016 vide cheque no.009692 and failed to refund the further amount. In the absence of specific time for delivery of possession by OP to complainants, it is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice as well of OP. We have nothing on the record to brush aside the exparte evidence of complainant on oath proving that OP has not raised any construction for development of the unit in a reasonable period. The unrebutted evidence of the complainant in this exparte case has relied upon by us. Consequently, it is held that  OP has been found to be deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice justifying the refund of the balance deposited amounts  with OP.

6.                We accordingly exparte accept this complaint of the complainants and direct OP to refund the amount of Rs.6,45,000/- to them with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of their deposits till actual payment. We further award composite amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and cost of litigation.

7.                 Arguments in this complaint were heard on 11.02.2019 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.

8.                 The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                               

                                                              (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL)

                                                                                MEMBER

February 13, 2019                                                         

(ravi)