DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR
(1) Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2019
Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.03.2019
Date of Decision : 23.03.2021
Meenakshi aged 47 years W/o Sh. Vivek Kumar R/o 33 Nizatam Nagar, Basti Nau Road, The & District Jalandhar, Punjab.
...….Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City, through its Executive Officer
….…Opposite Party
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Smt. Harleen Kaur, Advocate
For OP : Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Advocate
(2) Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2019
Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.03.2019
Date of Decision : 23.03.2021
Ram Singh aged 71 years, S/O Shiv Sharan Dass, R/O NE-229, Mohalla Thapran, The & District Jalandhar, Punjab.
...….Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City, through its Executive Officer
….…Opposite Party
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Smt. Harleen Kaur, Advocate
For OP : Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Advocate
(3) Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2019
Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.03.2019
Date of Decision : 23.03.2021
Vikas Bajaj aged 46 years S/O Sh. Nirmal Kumar Bajaj, R/o 862, Preet Nagar Block-C, Near Markfed Chowk, The & District Kapurthala, Punjab.
...….Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City, through its Executive Officer
….…Opposite Party
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Smt. Harleen Kaur, Advocate
For OP : Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Advocate
AND
Consumer Complaint No.84 of 2019
Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 2019
Date of Institution : 18.03.2019
Date of Decision : 23.03.2021
Anita aged 57 years, W/O Sh. Upinder Nath, House No.14 A, Link Nagar, Ladowali Road, Teh & District Jalandhar, Punjab.
...….Complainant
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Model Town Road, Jalandhar City, through its Executive Officer
….…Opposite Party
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM:
SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. JYOTSNA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
For Complainant : Smt. Harleen Kaur, Advocate
For OP : Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Advocate
ORDER:-
KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
1. By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above referred four consumer complaints, as they have arisen out of the same order and, thus, can be disposed of together. The order shall be pronounced by us in main Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2019 titled as “Meenakshi Vs.Jalandhar Improvement Trust.”
2. Consumer Complaint No.81 of 2019 has been filed by Meenakshi Complainant on the averments that on the allurement by OP venture for development of Bibi Bhani Complex L.I.G Flats published and advertised to provide shelter to needy public with ultra modern facilities with quality and standard of construction applied for LIG Flat. He submitted application No.71246 on prescribed form along with all requisite documents. She was allotted LIG Flat No. 57-A Ground Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The information regarding the allotment of LIG Flat was given by OP vide its Letter No.JIT/7795 dated 28.01.2010, to the complainant. She has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within stipulated period. The complainant paid whole purchase price of the flat in the sum of Rs.6,26,422/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. But OP failed to deliver physical possession with all amenities as per contractual obligation within the promised period. After lapse of more than nine years from the date of allotment, OP was unable to give any valid and satisfactory reason and justification for unpardonable delay and non-delivery of physical possession agreed and assured to him, till date tantamount to deceptive and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to refund/return Rs.6,26,422/- deposited by complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit up to the date of actual payment, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and other expenses mentioned in the complaint.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint does not lie with the learned Forum, In view of the provisions of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, whereby the Legislature has framed a Special Statute for adjudication of matters of real estate wherein the buyers of house/flat may approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities established under the Act ibid regarding their grievances, the present complaint is not maintainable and is against the letter and spirit of the Act promulgated by the State. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law. That the complainant is barred by her own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire price of the flat. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
5. The complainant has brought on the file his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, OP has brought on the file affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer Jalandhar Improvement Trust and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
Facts of Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2019
1. Complaint No.82 of 2019 has been filed by Ram Singh on the averments that on the allurement by OP venture for development of Bibi Bhani Complex L.I.G Flats published and advertised to provide shelter to needy public with ultra modern facilities with quality and standard of construction applied for LIG Flat. She submitted application no.71820 on prescribed form along with all requisite documents. He was allotted LIG Flat No.88-A, First Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The information regarding the allotment of LIG Flat was given by OP vide its Letter No.JIT/7972 dated 28.01.2010, to the complainant. He has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within stipulated period. The complainant paid whole purchase price of the flat in the sum of Rs.5,87,942/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. OP had deceived the complainant by misleading and fraudulent advertisement since the allotment of the flat was fake and there was no such flat at the site. OP was unable to give any valid reason and justification for allotting fake and non-existing flat to the complainant. OP failed to deliver physical possession with all amenities as per contractual obligation within the promised period. After lapse of more than eight years from the date of allotment, OP was unable to give any valid and satisfactory reason and justification for unpardonable delay and non-delivery of physical possession agreed and assured to him, till date tantamount to deceptive and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to refund/return Rs.5,87,942/- deposited by complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit up to the date of actual payment, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and other expenses mentioned in the complaint.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint does not lie with the learned Forum, In view of the provisions of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, whereby the Legislature has framed a Special Statute for adjudication of matters of real estate wherein the buyers of house/flat may approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities established under the Act ibid regarding their grievances, the present complaint is not maintainable and is against the letter and spirit of the Act promulgated by the State. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law. That the complainant is barred by her own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire price of the flat. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
4. The complainant has brought on the file her affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, OP has brought on the file affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer Jalandhar Improvement Trust and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
Facts of Consumer Complaint No.83 of 2019
1. Complaint No.83 of 2019 has been filed by Vikas Bajaj on the averments that on the allurement by OP venture for development of Bibi Bhani Complex L.I.G Flats published and advertised to provide shelter to needy public with ultra modern facilities with quality and standard of construction applied for LIG Flat. He submitted application no.71713 on prescribed form along with all requisite documents. He was allotted LIG Flat No.56-A, First Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The information regarding the allotment of LIG Flat was given by OP vide its Letter No.JIT/7946 dated 28.01.2010, to the complainant. He has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within stipulated period. The complainant paid whole purchase price of the flat in the sum of Rs.6,12,631/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. OP had deceived the complainant by misleading and fraudulent advertisement since there was no explanation whatsoever from OP for non delivery of physical possession with all amenities as per contractual obligation with the promised contractual period. After lapse of more than eight years from the date of allotment, OP was unable to give any valid and satisfactory reason and justification for unpardonable delay and non-delivery of physical possession agreed and assured to him, till date tantamount to deceptive and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to refund/return Rs.6,12,631/- deposited by complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit up to the date of actual payment, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and other expenses mentioned in the complaint.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint does not lie with the learned Forum, In view of the provisions of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, whereby the Legislature has framed a Special Statute for adjudication of matters of real estate wherein the buyers of house/flat may approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities established under the Act ibid regarding their grievances, the present complaint is not maintainable and is against the letter and spirit of the Act promulgated by the State. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law. That the complainant is barred by her own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. The OP is a statutory body duty bound under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 to seek the compliance of the statutory provisions. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire price of the flat. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
4. The complainant has brought on the file her affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand, OP has brought on the file affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer Jalandhar Improvement Trust and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.
Facts of Consumer Complaint No.84 of 2019
1. Complaint No.84 of 2019 has been filed by Anita that on the allurement by OP venture for development of Bibi Bhani Complex L.I.G Flats published and advertised to provide shelter to needy public with ultra modern facilities with quality and standard of construction applied for LIG Flat. He submitted application No.70563 on prescribed form along with all requisite documents. He was allotted LIG Flat No. 26-A Second Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex), Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The information regarding the allotment of LIG Flat was given by OP vide its Letter No.JIT/7895 dated 28.01.2010, to the complainant. He has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within stipulated period. The complainant paid whole purchase price of the flat in the sum of Rs.6,15,298/- to OP as per allotment letter dated 28.01.2010. But OP failed to deliver physical possession with all amenities as per contractual obligation within the promised period. After lapse of more than nine years from the date of allotment, OP was unable to give any valid and satisfactory reason and justification for unpardonable delay and non-delivery of physical possession agreed and assured to him, till date tantamount to deceptive and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to refund/return Rs.6,15,298/- deposited by complainant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit up to the date of actual payment, Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, besides Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and other expenses mentioned in the complaint.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has recklessly with total false pleadings and based on untruth filed the present complaint with an allurement of seeking the refund of the sale money whereas there is no such occasion at all. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the fact of delivery of possession to her from the learned Forum. The present complaint does not lie with the learned Forum, In view of the provisions of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016, whereby the Legislature has framed a Special Statute for adjudication of matters of real estate wherein the buyers of house/flat may approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authorities established under the Act ibid regarding their grievances, the present complaint is not maintainable and is against the letter and spirit of the Act promulgated by the State. The present complaint is an abuse of process of law. That the complainant is barred by her own act, conduct, laches and negligence from filing the present complaint and claiming the relief as prayed in the present complaint. The OP is a statutory body duty bound under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 to seek the compliance of the statutory provisions. On merits, it is admitted that the flat in question has been allotted to the complainant and complainant has also deposited the entire price of the flat. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
4. The complainant has brought on the file his affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14. On the other hand, OP has brought on the file affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer Jalandhar Improvement Trust and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
Findings of Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2019
1. The complainant applied for LIG Flats launched by OPs taken in by the advertisement. She was allotted flat no.57-A Ground Floor Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex) Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The complainant has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within the stipulated period. The only formality which was to be completed was to give the possession of the allotted flat duly completed with all the amenities and ultramodern facilities with quality of standard construction. The price of the flat was Rs.6,26,422/-which was paid to OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of allotment letter no.7795 dated 28.01.2010. Ex.C-2 is copy of payment dated 15.02.2010 for Rs.1,15,072/-. Ex.C-3 is copy of payment dated 12.07.2010 for Rs.90,270/-. Ex.C-4 is copy of payment dated 17.01.2011 for Rs.90,270/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of payment dated 25.07.2011 for payment of Rs.90,270/-. Ex.C-6 is copy of payment dated 18.01.2012 for payment of Rs.90,270/-. Ex.C-7 is copy of payment dated 17.07.2012 for payment of Rs.90,270/-. These receipts shows that complainant paid whole amount of the flat in question without any delay, but physical possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant within time.
2. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP tendered copy of letter no. JIT/6862 dated 16.05.2017 as Ex.OP-1 regarding possession of the flat no.57-A. OP has also not produced reply of that above said letter Ex.OP-1 in support of his case, whether this letter received from the complainant or not? The OP has also produced affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer JIT. This witness denied any deficiency in service on their part.
3. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record, we find that despite receipt of the major amounts of sale consideration, OP has not delivered the possession of the flat in question to complainant. OP has not yet obtained completion certificate of this project from the competent authority under PAPRA Act 1995, so as to deliver its possession to the complainant. The OP has not placed on record possession letter in this case, from which it is proved that offer of possession was given to complainant or not?
Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record citation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Apex Buildtech Ltd. Versus Madhu Taneja reported in 2017 (2) CLT wherein it has been held that “the petitioner is a builder who has utilized the money of gullible consumer on the false promise that he would deliver the possession within 3 years which he has not been able to fulfill even after 10 years of booking. Therefore, order of Fora granting 18% interest cannot be faulted.” Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Further, the judgment titled as Sandeep Baweja versus Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & others reported in 2017(3) CLT of State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that “ Refund claimed- Held- It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid.” The case law titled as Vineet Arora versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & other reported in 2017(2) CLT in complaint case no. 704 of 2016 decided on 25th April, 2017 of State Consumer Commission, U.T Chandigarh wherein it has been held that: “It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest.”
The above referred judgments relied upon by complainant are applicable in the all the consumer complaints. Thus, the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OP and consequently, OP is directed to refund Rs.6,26,422/- price of the flat in question to complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till its realization. The complainant is also entitled Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
Findings of Consumer Complaint No. 82 of 2019
1. The complainant applied for LIG Flats launched by OPs taken in by the advertisement. He was allotted flat no.88-A First Floor, Vikas Scheme 51.5 Acre (Bibi Bhani Complex) Guru Amar Das Nagar, Jalandhar on 16.08.2009 in lucky draw dated 16.08.2009 at Red Cross Bhawan, Jalandhar. The complainant has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within the stipulated period. The only formality which was to be completed was to give the possession of the allotted flat duly completed with all the amenities and ultramodern facilities with quality of standard construction. The price of the flat was Rs.5,87,942/-which was paid to OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of allotment letter no.7972 dated 28.01.2010. Ex.C-2 is copy of payment dated 23.10.2010 for Rs.1,04,342/-. Ex.C-3 is copy of payment dated 19.07.2010 for Rs.84,720/-. Ex.C-4 is copy of payment dated 19.01.2011 for Rs.84,720/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of payment dated 22.07.2011 for Rs.84,720/-. Ex.C-6 is copy of payment dated 18.01.2012 for payment of Rs.84,720/-. Ex.C-7 is copy of payment dated 19.07.2012 for Rs.84,720/-. These receipts shows that complainant paid whole amount of the flat in question without any delay but physical possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant within time.
2. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP has produced affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer JIT as Ex.OP/A. This witness denied any deficiency in service on their part. Letter No.JIT/6871 dated 16.05.2017 as Ex.OP-1, Allotment Letter dated 28.01.2010 as Ex.OP-2 and other documents Ex.OP-3 & Ex.OP-5.
3. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record, we find that despite receipt of the major amounts of sale consideration, OP has not delivered the possession of the flat in question to complainant. OP has not yet obtained completion certificate of this project from the competent authority under PAPRA Act 1995, so as to deliver its possession to the complainant. The OP has not placed on record possession letter in this case, from which it is proved that offer of possession was given to complainant or not?
Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record citation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Apex Buildtech Ltd. Versus Madhu Taneja reported in 2017 (2) CLT wherein it has been held that “the petitioner is a builder who has utilized the money of gullible consumer on the false promise that he would deliver the possession within 3 years which he has not been able to fulfill even after 10 years of booking. Therefore, order of Fora granting 18% interest cannot be faulted.” Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Further, the judgment titled as Sandeep Baweja versus Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & others reported in 2017(3) CLT of State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that “ Refund claimed- Held- It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid.” The case law titled as Vineet Arora versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & other reported in 2017(2) CLT in complaint case no. 704 of 2016 decided on 25th April, 2017 of State Consumer Commission, U.T Chandigarh wherein it has been held that: “It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest.”
The above referred judgments relied upon by complainant are applicable in the all the consumer complaints. Thus, the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OP and consequently, OP is directed to refund Rs.5,87,942/- price of the flat in question to the complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till its realization. The complainant is also entitled Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
Findings of Consumer Complaint No. 83 of 2019
1. The complainant applied for LIG Flats launched by OPs taken in by the advertisement. He was allotted flat no.56-A First Floor in the Development Scheme of Bibi Bhani Complex LIG Flats published and advertised by OP to provide shelter to needy homebuyers public with ultramodern facilities with quality and standard construction. The complainant has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within the stipulated period. The only formality which was to be completed was to give the possession of the allotted flat duly completed with all the amenities and ultramodern facilities with quality of standard construction. The price of the flat was Rs.6,12,631/- which was paid to OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of allotment letter dated 28.01.2010 issued by Jalandhar Improvement Trust Jalandhar in favour of the complainant. From perusal of this letter, it is clear that Flat No. 56-A was allotted to the complainant. Ex.C-2 is copy of payment dated 26.02.2010 for Rs.1,04,342/- .Ex.C-3 is copy of payment dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.85,652/-. Ex.C-4 is copy of payment dated 29.07.2011 for Rs.1,08,047/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of payment dated 29.07.2011 for Rs.84,870/-. Ex.C-6 is copy of payment dated 11.05.2012 for Rs.85,000/-. Ex.C-7 is copy of payment dated 17.07.2012 for Rs.84,720/-. These receipts shows that complainant paid whole amount of the flat in question without any delay, but physical possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant within time.
2. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP has produced affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer JIT as Ex.OP/A. This witness denied any deficiency in service on their part. Letter No.JIT/4537 dated 15.04.2019 as Ex.OP-1 and some other documents Ex.OP-2 & Ex.OP-3.
3. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record, we find that despite receipt of the major amounts of sale consideration, OP has not delivered the possession of the flat in question to complainant. OP has not yet obtained completion certificate of this project from the competent authority under PAPRA Act 1995, so as to deliver its possession to the complainant. The OP has not placed on record possession letter in this case, from which it is proved that offer of possession was given to complainant or not?
Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record citation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Apex Buildtech Ltd. Versus Madhu Taneja reported in 2017 (2) CLT wherein it has been held that “the petitioner is a builder who has utilized the money of gullible consumer on the false promise that he would deliver the possession within 3 years which he has not been able to fulfill even after 10 years of booking. Therefore, order of Fora granting 18% interest cannot be faulted.” Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Further, the judgment titled as Sandeep Baweja versus Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & others reported in 2017(3) CLT of State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that “ Refund claimed- Held- It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid.” The case law titled as Vineet Arora versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & other reported in 2017(2) CLT in complaint case no. 704 of 2016 decided on 25th April, 2017 of State Consumer Commission, U.T Chandigarh wherein it has been held that: “It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest.”
The above referred judgments relied upon by complainant are applicable in the all the consumer complaints. Thus, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OP and consequently, OP is directed to refund Rs.6,12,631/- price of the flat in question to complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till its realization. The complainant is also entitled Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
Findings of Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 2019
1. The complainant applied for LIG Flats launched by OPs taken in by the advertisement. She was allotted flat no.26-A Second Floor in the Development Scheme of Bibi Bhani Complex LIG Flats published and advertised by OP to provide shelter to needy homebuyers public with ultramodern facilities with quality and standard construction. The complainant has deposited all the requisite papers for registration of the application with the necessary fee and other formalities were completed within the stipulated period. The only formality which was to be completed was to give the possession of the allotted flat duly completed with all the amenities and ultramodern facilities with quality of standard construction. The price of the flat was Rs.6,15,298/- which was paid to OP. Ex.C-1 is copy of allotment letter no.7895 dated 28.01.2010 issued by Jalandhar Improvement Trust Jalandhar in favour of the complainant. From perusal of this letter, it is clear that Flat No. 26-A was allotted to the complainant. Ex.C-2 is copy of payment dated 15.02.2010 for Rs.95,149/-. Ex.C-3 is copy of payment receipt dated 19.07.2010 for Rs.100/-. Ex.C-4 is copy of payment receipt dated 29.07.2010 for Rs.39,882.50/-. Ex.C-5 is copy of payment receipt dated 17.01.2011 for Rs.39,982.50/-. Ex.C-6 is copy of payment receipt dated 15.07.2011 for Rs.39,983/-. Ex.C-7 is copy of payment receipt dated 15.07.2011 for Rs.350/-. Ex.C-8 is copy of payment receipt dated 23.01.2012 for Rs.39,982.50/-. Ex.C-9 is copy of payment receipt dated 18.07.2012 for Rs.39,982.50/-. Ex.C-10 is copy of payment receipt dated 15.01.2013 for Rs.51,977.50/-. Ex.C-11 is copy of payment receipt dated 15.07.2013 for Rs.51,997.50/-. Ex.C-12 is copy of payment receipt dated 14.01.2014 for Rs.51,978/-. Ex.C-13 is copy of payment receipt dated 14.07.2014 for Rs.51,978/-. Ex.C-14 is copy of payment receipt dated 12.01.2015 for Rs.51,978/-. These receipts shows that complainant paid whole amount of the flat in question without any delay, but physical possession of the flat was not delivered to the complainant within time.
2. To refute this evidence of the complainant, OP has produced affidavit of Surinder Kumari Executive Officer JIT as Ex.OP-A. This witness denied any deficiency in service on their part and also brought on the file some letters/documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
3. From evaluation of above referred evidence on the record, we find that despite receipt of the major amounts of sale consideration, OP has not delivered the possession of the flat in question to complainant. OP has not yet obtained completion certificate of this project from the competent authority under PAPRA Act 1995, so as to deliver its possession to the complainant. The OP has not placed on record possession letter in this case, from which it is proved that offer of possession was given to complainant or not?
Learned counsel for the complainant placed on record citation of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Apex Buildtech Ltd. Versus Madhu Taneja reported in 2017 (2) CLT wherein it has been held that “the petitioner is a builder who has utilized the money of gullible consumer on the false promise that he would deliver the possession within 3 years which he has not been able to fulfill even after 10 years of booking. Therefore, order of Fora granting 18% interest cannot be faulted.” Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. Further, the judgment titled as Sandeep Baweja versus Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited & others reported in 2017(3) CLT of State Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held that “ Refund claimed- Held- It is settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid.” The case law titled as Vineet Arora versus Emaar MGF Land Limited & other reported in 2017(2) CLT in complaint case no. 704 of 2016 decided on 25th April, 2017 of State Consumer Commission, U.T Chandigarh wherein it has been held that: “It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the right to interest.”
The above referred judgments relied upon by complainant are applicable in the all the consumer complaints. The deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved on the part of OP and consequently, OP is directed to refund Rs.6,15,298/- price of the flat in question to complainant with interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till its realization. The complainant is also entitled Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
Decision of Consumer Complaint no.81 of 2019
1. This complaint titled as “Meenakshi Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust” is accepted and below noted directions are issued to OPs in favour of complainant:-
i) OP is directed to refund Rs.6,26,422/- as cost of the flat in question, which had paid by the complainant to OPs along with @ 6% interest, from the date of allotment till its final realization.
ii) The OP is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
Decision of Consumer Complaint no. 82 of 2019
1. This complaint titled as “Ram Singh Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust” is accepted and below noted directions are issued to OP in favour of complainants :-
i) OP is directed to refund Rs.5,87,942/- as cost of the flat in question, which had paid by the complainant to OPs along with @ 6% interest, from the date of allotment till its final realization.
ii) The OP is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
Decision of Consumer Complaint no.83 of 2019
1. This complaint titled as “Vikas Bajaj Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust” is accepted and below noted directions are issued to OPs in favour of complainant :-
i) OP is directed to refund Rs.6,12,631/- as cost of the flat in question, which had paid by the complainant to OPs along with @ 6% interest, from the date of allotment till its final realization.
ii) The OP is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
Decision of Consumer Complaint no.84 of 2019
1. This complaint titled as “Anita Versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust” is accepted and below noted directions are issued to OP in favour of complainant:-
i) OP is directed to refund Rs.6,15,298/- as cost of the flat in question, which had paid by the complainant to OPs along with @ 6% interest, from the date of allotment till its final realization.
ii) The OP is also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant and further to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.
3. The compliance of the order in all the above complaints be made by OP in one month period from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
23th of March 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
