Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/197/2023

M/S KHANDELIA OIL & GENERAL MILLS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV K. DHIMAN

26 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/197/2023
Date of Institution	:	13.4.2023
Date of Decision	:	26/3/2024

 

M/s Khandelia Oil & General Mills Pvt. Ltd., 23, Industrial Area, Phase-II, U.T. Chandigarh through Sh. Mohd. Arshad, Purchase Manager, Authorized Signatory.

 

...COMPLAINANT.

VERSUS

 

1. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Mandi Bhavan, C-6, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana 134109, through its Chief Administrator.

 

2. The Executive Officer-cum- Secretary, Market Committee, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

...OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sunil K. Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the in the year 2008 the OPs launched their project namely Agro Mall and issued brochure Annexure C-2. The complainant applied for allotment of shop in the said project of the OP and deposited 10% amount for allotment of shop measuring 1683 Sq. ft.  for a sale consideration of Rs.1,19,12,242/- . The complainant intended to use the said shop for his livelihood and for personal use and occupation. Thereafter a draw of lots was held by the OPs on 7.11.2008 and the complainant was declared successful in all respect in draw of lots held by the OPs and allotted shop No.89 measuring 1683 sq. ft. for sale consideration of Rs.1,19,12,242/-. Prior to issuance of allotment letter the complainant paid 25%  cost of the shop in question as per conditions of the OPs.  Thereafter allotment letter dated 22.6.2009  was issued in favour of the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant opted to deposit the remaining 75% amount in half yearly installments at the rate of Rs.14,84,224/- as per the scheduled given in the allotment letter starting from 15.11.2009 to 15.5.2012.  It is alleged that at the time of launching the project the OPs assured that the project will be completed by April 2009. However, even after lapse of numbers of years the Ops failed to hand over possession of the shop in question. It is alleged that the Ops failed to obtain necessary   permissions and sanctions from the competent authorities and as such could not  initiate the construction work. The complainant approached the OPs numerous time to hand over the possession but  nothing positive has come out. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant is himself a defaulter in payment as after the deposit of 25% of the sale price in year 2008; the he has failed to pay any installment towards the balance sale consideration as per the allotment letter. The balance amount was supposed to be paid in six half yearly installments with 15% interest between 15.11.2009 to 15.11.2011; however, the complainant neither paid any of the installments nor sought any extension of time by way of any communication. It is averred that  on account of certain exigencies the project of answering respondents got delayed and accordingly without any application from the complainant, answering respondents re-scheduled the installments vide letter bearing memo No. 1580 dated 15.03.2013 whereby the earlier six installments were required to be paid in half yearly installments from 15.11.2011 to 15.05.2014 and the said aspect was duly communicated to the complainant vide letter bearing no 1580 dated 15.03.2012. However, again neither the complainant paid any installment in furtherance to the allotted unit nor sought any extension of time. The answering OPs had even offered the possession of the unit in question to the complainant vide letter bearing memo No.545 dated 05.04.2016 and letter no. 2222 Annexure R-5 dated 10.10.2016 and in reference to the said offer of possession, the complainant company issued a letter Annexure R-6 dated 26.10.2016, whereby the answering OPs had communicated the details of the persons under whose signature the physical possession can be delivered. However, till date neither the complainant paid the balance sale consideration nor the authorized person turn up for taking the possession of the unit in question. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. No rejoinder filed.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant booked the unit in question with the Ops in the year 2008. Accordingly, the complainant paid 10% amount for the allotment of the unit in question and thereafter again paid 15% amount as per demand of the OPs. It is also not disputed that due to certain exigencies the project of the OPs got delayed. Admittedly the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.29,78,100/- being 25%  of the total sale consideration of the unit in question. Admittedly the complainant has not taken the possession till date as the OPs have failed to construct the project after taking necessary permissions from the competent authorities.
7.  After going through the  entire evidence  on record it is abundantly clear that the OPs could not raise construction within stipulated time and as such they could not hand over  the possession of the unit in question to the complainant within time i.e. in the year 2009 as promised by them.  Moreover, the  Ops have  failed to prove on record that they have taken all the necessary permissions from the competent authorities prior to launch of their project. To authenticate the above fact the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-7 his application for information under RTI Act 2005, reply to which is annexed at page 54 of the paper book.
8. 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. The facts of the case in hand are similar to the facts of the case discussed above.
9. Undisputedly, the amount deposited by the complainant is not a charity but his hard earned money which  has been utilized  by the OPs for so many years.   
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.29,78,100/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the respective dates of deposit till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 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.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
13.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
26/3/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member