DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

(1)

1.                 Mr. Sonu Mittal son of Babu Ram Mittal, Flat No.04/401, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

2.                 Smt. Paramjit Kaur w/o S. Achhna Singh, Flat No.05/503, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

3.                 Smt. Pushpa Juneja w/o Sh. M.M. Janeja, Flat No.103/Rose, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

Hanumant Builders and Land Developers, SCO 158-159, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its partner Sh. Sanjay Garg s/o Sh. Mangat Rai Garg resident of 3-P, Teg Bagh, Patiala, Punjab.

---Opposite Party.

(2)

1.                 Prit Pal Singh Grewal (since deceased) now represented by Paramjit Kaur Grewal w/o late Sh. Pritpal Singh Grewal r/o Flat No.04/402, Bollywood Heights, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

2.                 Sh. R.S. Grewal s/o Sh. H.S. Grewal r/o  Flat No.05/303, Bollywood Heights, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

3.                 Mrs. Renu Bansal w/o Sh. Sanjeev Bansal r/o Flat No.03/104, Bollywood Heights, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

Hanumant Builders and Land Developers, SCO No.158-159, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its partner Sh. Sanjay Garg s/o Sh. Mangat Rai Garg.

---Opposite Party.

(3)

1.                 Sh. D.B. Gupta son of late Sh. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, Flat No.12/202, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

2.                 Sh. G.S. Sodhi son of late Sh. Gian Singh Sodhi, Flat No.12/503, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

3.                 Sh. K.S. Walia son of late Sh. Gursharan Singh, Flat No.07/102, Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

Hanumant Builders and Land Developers, SCO No.158-159, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its partner Sh. Sanjay Garg s/o Sh. Mangat Rai Garg.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. M.K. Mittal, Adv. for the complainants

                        Sh. Dinesh Madra, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           By this order we propose to dispose of the abovementioned three consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.

2.                           The facts are culled out from C.C. No.546 of 2011-Mr. Sonu Mittal & Ors. Vs. Hanumant Builders and Land Developers.

3.                           Mr. Sonu Mittal and others have filed his complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

(i)                to pay a compensation of Rs.6 lacs to each complainant in lieu of deficiency in service

(ii)             to refund Rs.70,000/- each charged as One Time Interest Free Maintenance Security or to refund the same to the duly elected resident allottees association of Bollywood Heights.

4.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are owners in possession of the flats in Bollywood Heights, Peermushalla, NAC Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                   According to the complainants, the opposite party, vide its brochure offered to sell four bedroom and three bedroom luxury apartments having floor area of 2293.52 sq. ft and 1727 sq. ft. respectively alongwith a parking slot to each flat.  However, after taking possession the complainants found various deficiencies in the flats such as the constructed floor area of the flats was not as per brochure; the material used in the construction was substandard; there are only 20 parking slots for 24 flats; generator installed is only of 720 KV capacity as against the required 2500 KV, non installation of security system and safety gadgets in the lifts; flats of Xynthia and Lavender tower were over disputed land which was not owned and possessed by the opposite party; non installation of fire fighting/safety system; water and sewerage system lacking the basic requirement; overhead tank provided for drinking water overflowing and not equipped with level sensors; instead of wooden flooring synthetic flooring has been provided in the master bedroom; non compliance with the provisions of earthquake resistance; failure to construct a cantilever, flooring in the parking area and  internal roads of the society are still to be finished; drivers room on the ground floor of every tower has not been provided; swimming pool and the club area is still not functioning despite charging Rs.50,000/- each as membership fee; the ACs provided are not functioning properly and that too are without stabilizers.  According to the complainants the opposite party had charged Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- from 4-Bedroom and 3-Bedroom apartments respectively as one time interest free maintenance for providing free maintenance for 36 months after handing over the possession to the complainants. It has been pleaded that though at the time of sale and in the agreement the opposite party had promised to transfer the amount of Rs.2.00 crores so collected to the residents allottees association to be utilised for the purpose of maintenance, but it has failed to do so.  It has further been pleaded that the opposite party has not even adhered to the provisions of Punjab Apartments Act.

                   According to the complainants, they requested the opposite many a times to rectify the deficiencies and also issued a registered legal notice, but to no avail

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 

5.                           In its written statement the opposite party admitted that the complainants are the owners in possession of the flat in question.  However, it has denied the remaining averments. 

                   It has been denied that the opposite party offered to sell 4 bedroom and 3 bedroom luxury apartments having floor area of 2293.52 sq.ft and 1727 sq ft respectively alongwith a parking slot to each flat. It has been vehemently denied that there is any deficiency in construction or shortfall in the area.  It has further been denied that, substandard material is used in the construction; that for 24 flats in each tower there were only 20 parking slots; that the responsibility of maintenance was of the opposite party; that the security systems are not installed in the complex; that the fire fighting/safety system have not been installed; that the water and sewerage system are lacking the basic requirements; that the overhead tank provided for  drinking water are overflowing; that it had promised to provide wooden flooring in the master bedroom of every flat; that the opposite party had not complied with the provisions of earthquake resistance while constructing towers; that it had promised to give a drivers room on the ground floor of every tower; that the swimming pool and the club area is still non functioning and lack minimum facilities; that the ACs provided were not working properly.  It has been pleaded that since the project was approved under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, so the provisions of Punjab Apartment Act were not applicable.   It has been pleaded that the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature without supporting evidence.

                   It has further been pleaded that as complicated facts are involved in the present complaint, so the same cannot be decided under the Act and the appropriate Forum is the Civil Court.

                   According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

6.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

7.                           By way of the present complaint the complainants are alleging various deficiencies as noticed by them after taking possession of the flats such as shortfall in the area of the 4-Bedroom and 3-Bedroom flats than as provided in the brochure;  use of substandard material; provision of only 20 parking slots as against 24 flats; not providing maintenance despite taking money; not providing sufficient electric load; non installation of security system and safety gadgets in the lifts; non installation of fire fighting/safety system; flats on Xynthia and Lavender towers being on disputed land; provisions of the Punjab Apartment Act being not adhered to; water and sewerage system lacking basic requirements; overflowing overhead tank; non compliance with the provisions of the earthquake resistance; non construction of cantilever etc. etc.      On the other hand, the opposite party has vehemently denied all these allegations. It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the opposite party that the averments of the complainants are general in nature and they have failed to specify as to which material was substandard or unbranded and which facility, as promised in the brochure, was not provided.  It has further been argued that as the complaint involves complicated questions, so the same may be relegated to the civil court.

8.                           After going through the pleadings of the parties, we are of the  opinion that in order to determine whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service with regard to defects pointed out by the complainants, voluminous evidence would be required to be led by the parties, which is not permissible in summary proceedings under the Act. Here we may also refer to the judgments in the case of Udayan Kumar Sengupta Vs. Basantilata Chowdhury-II(2003) CPJ 81 and Mohan Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Santosh Yadav-I(2012) CPJ 335 (NC).

9.                           So, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.  The complainants are free to approach the competent civil court   for redressal of their grievances, if so advised. 

10.                       Similarly, the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, are also dismissed with no order as to costs. 

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.10.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER