Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/146/2021

Poonam Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Mandeep Kumar Dhot

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/146/2021
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	10/03/2023

 

Poonam Sharma, aged about 42 years, wife of Sh.Harbhajan, Resident of House No.6409/B, Sector 56, Chandigarh; Now residing at Flat No.1726, Phase X, Sector 64, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Slab No.101-J, Peer Muchala, Imperial Residential Society, District Mohali, through its Director Vikas Goyal.
2. Mr.Manpreet Singh alias Sonu, Member, Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd. Tricity Media, Co-op House Building Society Limited, SCO No.545, Sector 70-Mohali.
3. Tricity Media, Co-op House Building Society Ltd., SCO No.219, 2^nd Floor, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh, through its Director Mr.Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal.
4. Amarjit Singh, Director of Tricity Media Co-op Housing Society Ltd., SCO No.545, Sector 70, Mohali.
5. Labh Singh alias Rana Village, Akalgarh, Tehsil Kurali District Roopnagar.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel for OP No.1, 3 & 4.
	:	OP No.2 & 5 already ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant booked a plot of 150 sq. yds., at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per sq. yds. The OP No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that they have already taken the necessary permissions from all the competent authorities and the complainant need not worry, then complainant came into sugar coated words of the OP No.1 & 2 and initially booked her residential plot by giving Rs.1 Lakh to the OP No.1 & 2. In this regard OP No.2 & 5 personally visited the house of complainant in October and received Rs.1 lac from the complainant and after this the OP No.2 and 5 again visited the house of the complainant and received Rs.3 lacs from the complainant and in proof of the same OP No.1 & 2 issued two receipts is annexed as Ex.C-1 & C-2. After issue of the letter to the complainant the OP No.1 & 2 neither developed the project, nor any intimation has been given to the complainant. After passing of considerable time, the complainant demanded her money back, but OPs neither have any intention to deliver the plot to the complainant nor they have any intention to return the money to the complainant. As per the promises the OPs were bound to complete/develop their project within stipulated time after getting the necessary approvals, but till date they have failed to do so. Hence, this present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 4 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant has only paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- against the total price of Rs.26,25,000/- only about 15% of the cost of the plot upto date and such the complainant is a big defaulter by 85% of the cost viz by an amount of INR 22,25,000/- of the plot thereby jeopardizing the completion and handover of the project in totality and has no right to get any relief. It is also submitted that the present complaint filed in March 2021, is hopelessly time barred and barred by delay and latches. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.1 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
3.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant is neither a member of the OP No.3 society nor a share holder of the OP No.3 society. It is also submitted that the OP No.3 is neither a product manufacture/product seller/product service provider nor the complainant is consumer of the OP No.3 and moreover there is no service by the OP No.3 towards the complainant. It is further submitted that the OP No.3 has neither rendered any service nor sold any product to the complainant for any consideration. Moreover, admittedly the complainant has neither paid nor promised to pay a single penny as consideration to the OP No.3. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 & 5 seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 & 5 despite following proper procedure, therefore they were proceeded ex-parte on 18.06.2021.
5.     Rejoinder on behalf of complainant not filed despite grant of sufficient time to the complainant. However, rejoinder on behalf of complainant has been closed vide order dated 21.12.2022. 
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8.     On perusal of Annexure C-1 & C-2, it is observed that amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.3,00,000/- were paid by the complainant to the OP No.1 & 2 on 22.12.2011 and 09.04.2012. On perusal of Annexure C-3, it is observed that the said letter does not carry any date or carries the details of plot number. In the absence of such important details no person is expected to deposite such a huge amount as demanded. In the said letter, it is mentioned that “This is to bring your kind notice that the project of Geetu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in Sector 113, Mohali, Punjab had been approved from Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) with:

1. CLU No.1458-STP(S)/SS-11(GR)
2. LOI No.GMADA/DTP/2013/1235”

9.     From perusal of above contents of the letter (Annexure C-3), it is very clear that the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was accepted by the OP No.1 & 2 on the dates, when the OP No.1 & 2, did not have the necessary approvals from competent authority. In case Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., reported as III(2007) CPJ-7 (NC),   the Hon’ble National Commission held that a builder should not collect money, from the prospective buyers, without obtaining the required permissions, such as zoning plan, layout plan, and schematic building plan. It is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, such as sanction for construction etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchasers of the flats/building.
10.     Significantly, OP No.2 & 5 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 & 5 draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 & 5 shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 & 2  are directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposited till its realization.

 

2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;

 

3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP No.3, 4 and 5, therefore, the consumer complaint qua them stands dismissed with no order as to costs.  

13.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
10/03/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member