Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/90/2021

Narendra Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Greater Mohali Area Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Singh Sidhu adv

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	90/2021
Date of Institution	:	04.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	02.11.2023

 

                     

            

 

Narendra Pal Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh r/o H.No.522, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.  Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Chief Administrator, Email:www.gmada.gov.in

 

2.  Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Estate Officer (IT City), Mohali, Punjab, Email:www.gmada.gov.in

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Rajinder Singh Sidhu, Counsel for complainant Sh.Ishneet Bhatia, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Jashan Preet Singh, Counsel for OP.

   

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

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that he purchased the plot measuring 256.66 sq. yards in Sector 83 Alpha City, the LOI dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure C-2) of which was earlier allotted to Sh.Satnam Singh s/o Sh.Resham Singh under the category of Disabled Persons/Deaf and Dumb by paying the requisite transfer fee to the OPs and the possession of which was to be delivered within one year from the date of issuance of the LOI. He also received the transfer of LOI vide letter dated 16.03.2017 on the same terms and conditions of the previous LOI(Annexure C-3).   After getting the mortgage permission, he availed the loan of Rs.32,89,202/- for land cost/construction thereupon. He was allotted plot No.1231, Sector 83A, Block B, measuring 256.66 sq. yards in Category A vide letter dated 15.06.2020 (Annexure C-5).  He paid all the due installments as per the LOI and paid total amount of Rs.49,48,038/- including tax, cess, transfer fee etc. after availing rebate of 5%.  The conveyance deed was also registered in favour of the complainant on 10.11.2020. According to the complainant, there was a delay of 2 years and 4 months 1 Day (851 days) in delivering the possession of the plot as per the terms and conditions of the LOI despite his repeated requests/visits. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to pay the interest @ 18% on the delayed period as per clause 10 of the LOI; interest on the amount i.e. actually paid by the complainant in home loan account for the delayed period only i.e. Rs.72,798/-, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, it has been stated that that the development of the area earmarked for plots of 256.66 sq. yds. Size was delayed due to reasons beyond the control of the authority as there was a delay in issuance of the Amended Environmental Clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority  and same was intimated to the general public by way of public notice dated 14.06.2019, published in the Tribune and upon receipt of the same on 28.03.2019, the development works of the said pocket could be undertaken by the authority and after completion of the development works at the site, numbering draw of the plots of 256.66 sq. yards size could be conducted on 20.12.2019 and consequently, the complainant was issued allotment letter vide memo dated 15.06.2020 and possession of the same was offered as per Clause 9 of the allotment letter.  It has further been stated that if between the date of transfer of LOI of the plot in favour of the complainant on 16.03.2017 till the offer of the possession of the plot to him through allotment letter, the complainant was aggrieved with the development works of the scheme, then as per Clause 27 of the allotment, he could have refused the allotment within 30 days, in which case deposited amount could have been considered to be refunded to him as per the rules. It has further been stated that the claim if any was to be filed within two years from the transfer of the LOI i.e. 16.03.2017 and beyond 16.03.2019, no such claim could be filed.  It has further stated that the matter is liable to be referred to the arbitrator as per Clause 26 of the LOI and clause 29 of the allotment letter. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     The complainant filed replication to the written reply of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
5.     The only issue involved in the present case is whether the complainant is entitled to the interest on the delayed delivery of possession of the plot by the OPs or not?
6.     In order to find out answer to the above mentioned issue, it is necessary to discuss the following facts and circumstances of the case.
7.     As far as the plea of the OPs regarding limitation is concerned, the same deserves to be rejected because the possession of the plot in question was delivered to the complainant on 15.06.2020 i.e. after huge delay of 2 years 4 months & 1 day (851 days) whereas the present complaint was filed in the year 2021 and as such the same is well within limitation.
8.     Admittedly, as per Clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the LOI dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure C-2), the physical possession of the plot was to be handed over to the allottee within a period of one year from the date of its issuance but in the complaint in hand, the possession of the plot was delivered to the complainant after a delay of 851 days. Now the OPs tried to wriggle out from its responsibility by stating that the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority caused delay in issuing the Amended Environmental Clearance and that thereafter the development works of the said pocket could be undertaken at the site, and after completion of the development works at the site, numbering draw of the plots of 256.66 sq. yards size could be conducted on 20.12.2019 and consequently, the complainant was issued allotment letter vide memo dated 15.06.2020. We are not inclined to accept this submission of the OPs as they have failed to clarify, as to why they received huge amounts, referred to above, from the allottees knowing fully well that necessary clearances have not been given by the competent Authorities. In our considered opinion, they should have obtained all the approvals/clearances before booking the said plots. If the OPs chose to accept booking without obtaining statutory approvals/clearances or amended clearances, they are to blame to themselves only. The purchaser of the plots, who had nothing to do with grant of statutory approvals/clearances, cannot be penalized by postponing the possession.
9.     It is observed that the Hon’ble National Commission in M/s. Narne Constructions Pvt. -8- Ltd. Vs. Dr. Devendra Sharma & 4 Ors., Revision Petition No. 4620 of 2013, decided on 17 Dec 2015 has held as under:-.

    “As far as final sanction of layout by HUDA is concerned, in my view, the petitioner cannot penalize the complainants/respondents for the delay in the aforesaid sanction since delay cannot be attributed to any act or omission on the part of the complainants/respondents.  In fact, in my opinion, the petitioner should not even have accepted the booking without final sanction of the layout by HUDA.  If the petitioner chose to accept booking on the basis of provisional sanction of the layout by HUDA, it is to blame to only itself for the delay, if any, on the part of the HUDA in issuing the final sanction of the layout.  The purchaser of the plot, who had nothing to do with the sanction of the layout by HUDA cannot be penalized, by postponing the possession or registration of the plot and therefore any escalation in the registration charges on account of delay in final sanction of layout by HUDA must necessarily be borne by the builder and not by the allottee of the plot…..”

10.           The complainant is certainly entitled to the interest on the delayed period because the possession of the plot was offered after a huge delay of 851 days.  Recently the Hon’ble National Commission in Nagesh Maruti Utekar Vs. Sunstone Developers Joint Venture Hubtown Sunstone, Consumer Case No.12 of 2017, decided on 4.5.2022, has awarded interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount, for the period of delay. Relevant part of the said order reads as under :-

    “…Consequently, the Opposite Party Developer is directed to pay interest @9% w.e.f. 31.03.2014, i.e., the expected date of delivery of the possession, on the amount deposited by the respective Complainant till 02.09.2017, i.e., the date on which the possession of the Flat was offered by the Opposite Party Developer, within two months from today…”

11.     Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Shreya Kumar Vs. M/s. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, Consumer Case No. 1021 of 2017, decided on 5.5.2022.
12.     The OPs is, thus, proved to have committed deficiency in service by not offering the possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period of one year from the date of issuance of the LOI.
13.     It is submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home & Hospital, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (NC) has held that the compensation  should be commensurate with loss and injury suffered by the complainant. The Consumer For as are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation.
14.      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay compensation by way of interest @ 9 % p.a. on the entire value of the plot at the time of issuance of the LOI from 15.02.2018 till 15.06.2020 to the complainant, within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
15.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
16.     Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 02/11/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER