Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/189/2021

Manpreet Mann - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Savinder Singh Gill

21 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/189/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2022

 

Manpreet Mann d/o Sh. Kuldip Singh Mann r/o House No.34, Manakpur Nanak Chand, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana 134102.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Wholetime Directors Sh. Satish Kumar, Sh. Raman Kumar and Sh. Pardeep Kumar.
2. Sh. Satish Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.
3. Sh. Raman Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.
4. Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.

… Opposite Parties

 

[2]

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/190/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2022

Manpreet Mann d/o Sh. Kuldip Singh Mann r/o House No.34, Manakpur Nanak Chand, Pinjore, Panchkula, Haryana 134102.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Wholetime Directors Sh. Satish Kumar, Sh. Raman Kumar and Sh. Pardeep Kumar.
2. Sh. Satish Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.
3. Sh. Raman Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.
4. Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Wholetime Director of Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. having its office at SCO No.196-197, Ground Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160022.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Savinder Singh Gill, Counsel for complainant
	:	None for OPs (defence struck off vide order dated 12.04.2022)

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.189 of 2021 titled as Manpreet Mann Vs. Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
3.     Allegations in brief are, on 12.1.2018 complainant applied for allotment of a commercial space of 500 sq. yards for earning livelihood by means of self-employment in the project of the OPs namely “GBP Centrum-2” at Village Singhpura, Zirakpur, NH-2, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.  Accordingly, buyer’s agreement was executed on 12.1.2018 and commercial space No.3 was allotted on second floor type food court. The total sale consideration of the commercial space was fixed at ₹48,68,277/- out of which the complainant had made payment of ₹48,59,211/- to the OPs. As per the agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered within 48 months i.e. on 11.01.2022.  However, when the complainant visited the site, she was shocked to see that there was no construction. In such circumstances, complainant vide email dated 16.2.2019 sought refund of the amount paid.  The OPs agreed to the same and even transferred the amount of ₹2,00,000/- to her and stated that the final amount would start in January, 2021.  However, subsequently OPs failed to refund the balance amount despite service of legal notice. Maintained, OPs illegally took the initial amount from the complainant without even obtaining the required sanctions from the competent authorities. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
4.     Initially, Sh. Paras Sharma, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the OPs and filed his vakalatnama. However, subsequently reply and evidence were not filed on behalf of OPs despite grant of sufficient opportunity. Therefore, vide order dated 12.4.2022, defence of the OPs was struck off.
5.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case including the written arguments.
7.     It is evident from the receipt dated 16.1.2018 (Annexure C-2) that the complainant had paid total amount of ₹90,98,422/- to the OPs being the balance installments towards booking of commercial space No.3 & 4, Type Food Court admeasuring 550 sq.feet (each) in the project of the OPs namely “GBP Centrum-2” situated at village Singhpura, Zirakpur, NH-22 in Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).  As per clause 9.1(i) of the Buyer’s Agreement (Annexure C-1) dated 12.1.2018 executed between the complainant and the OPs, possession of the unit was to be delivered within 48 months from the date of agreement i.e. the same was to be handed over by January 2022.  As per the case of the complainant, when she visited the site of the project to see the status of the work, she was shocked to see that there was no construction at the site. The issue was raised with the OPs and they assured the complainant that the construction would start soon. Vide email Annexure C-3 (colly.) exchanged between the parties, OPs agreed to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Annexure C-4 (colly.) are the copies of documents sent by the complainant to the OPs regarding surrender of the property and refund of the amount paid. However, the OPs transferred an amount of ₹2,00,000/- only to complainant’s account out of total deposited amount and informed that the refund of final amount would start in January 2021, but, they failed to do so despite various requests and service of legal notice.
8.     It is worth noting that despite availing sufficient opportunity, OPs chose not to file their reply and evidence due to which their defence was struck off. The subsequent non-appearance of the OPs show that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. This act of OPs draws an adverse inference against them. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
9.     Perusal of the record shows that the complainant had invested the amount for the purchase of commercial units for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment but neither the possession of the units was offered nor refund was given to her.  The learned counsel for the complainant relied on case titled Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Anr., First Appeal No.342 of 2014, decided on 25.7.2014 by the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it was observed that “the appellants should have given firm date of handing 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.”
10.     In this regard, reliance can also be had on the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC) and relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land.”

11.     We are of the considered opinion that the act of the OPs in collecting money from the complainant, without having the requisite approvals/sanctions/permissions from the competent authorities and most importantly non appearing during the proceedings of the present case certainly proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Till date the amount is lying deposited with the OPs and they are illegally reaping benefits of the same. Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount.
12.     Now coming to the question as to what is the deposited amount, no doubt the complainant has prayed for refund of the amount of ₹46,59,211/- (₹48,59,211/- in the second case), but, she has failed to place on record any documentary evidence in support of the same. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the complainant in the written arguments prayed for the refund of ₹43,49,211/- only (inclusive of the amount of ₹2,00,000/- already refunded) in the first case and ₹45,49,211/- in the second case which is totally in conformity with the documentary evidence on record (Annexure C-2).  Hence, the complainant is held to be entitled to refund of the aforesaid amounts alongwith interest and compensation for harassment suffered by her.
13.     In view of the above discussion, both the consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

CC/189/2021

1. to refund the total deposited amount of ₹43,49,211/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

CC/190/2021

1. to refund the total deposited amount of ₹45,49,211/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs 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.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/06/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member