Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/245/2020

Karandeep Singh Bhullar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M3M India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Sharma

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.   KARANDEEP SINGH BHULLAR aged about 62 years, s/o Shri Jaswant Singh Bhullar,.

2.   MRS. TILNEI BHULLAR aged about 59 years, w/o Shri Karandeep Singh Bhullar.

     Both permanent residents of House No. 568, Sector 18B, Chandigarh.

COMPLAINANTS

Versus

1.   M3M INDIA LIMITED (formerly M3M India Developers Limited), through its Managing Director having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

2.   ROOP KUMAR BANSAL, Director, M3M India Limited, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

3.   PANKAJ BANSAL, Director M3M INDIA LIMITED, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

4.   VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL, Director M3M India Limited, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

5.   VIVEK RANJAN, Director, M3M India Limited, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

6.   RASHMI GUPTA, Director, M3M India Limited, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

7.   RAJAN KAPOOR, Authorised Signatory, M3M India Limited, having registered office Paras Twin Towers, Tower "B", 6th Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana

     All Above 1 to 7 also at Email:

9.   SHRI SHALENDRA GOYAL authorized signatory of M/S MARTIAL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED, Cabin-2, Office No. 1221-A, Devika Tower, 12th Floor, 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi

  … Opposite Parties

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated on the allurement of Ops No. 1 to 7 the complainant booked one commercial unit with OPs on 24.6.2011  having total sale consideration of Rs.93,81,706/- by paying Rs.17,04,643/- and provisional allotment was issued to the complainant. alongwith payment schedule for commercial unit measuring approx. 734.76 sq. ft.  located on the ground floor in M3M Urban at Sector 67, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is alleged that the OPs have not executed any agreement and kept demanding money from the complainant  and the complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.34,71,325/- as per demand of the OPs. It is alleged that vide letter dated 29.10.2012 the OPs unilaterally revised the area of the unit in question allotted to the complainant without prior consent of the complainant and also enhanced the price of the unit and the payment plan was also revised and undated buyer’s agreement was also given to the complainant, which was sent back to the OPs after signing the same. It is alleged that thereafter the OPs returned the buyer’s agreement date  as 25.2.2013, which was protested by the complainant  as the date should have been 24.6.2011 but the Ops did not act and calculated the date of possession from 25.2.2013, which means the date of delivery of possession of unit was 25.2.2016 i.e. after 36 months and on 25.8.2016 i.e. 36 months plus 180 days grace period.  After buyer’s agreement dated 25.2.2013 the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.85,18,002/- till 1.2.2016 starting from 24.6.2011 and total of Rs.94,48,696/- till 21.4.2018.  It is alleged that despite payment of amount upto date the possession of the unit in question was not delivered till date.  The complainants have already paid 95% of the total consideration including charges as applicable and remaining 5% amount was to be paid at the time of handing over of the possession. On 11.7.2020 the OPs issued notice of possession without paying the agreed delayed  compensation to the complainant and the complainant replied the same with request to  pay delayed compensation  but to no avail.  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 NO.1 in its reply  while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complaint is not maintainable qua it. It is alleged that in fact, it is the Complainants who have failed to the make payment as per the agreed payment schedule so mentioned in the Commercial Unit Buyer's Agreement dated 25.02.2013 and were defaulter in terms of making the timely payments which was the essence of the Agreement. It is pertinent to mention here that the Occupation Certificate has already been granted by the competent authorities and the possessions have also been handed over to various allottees in the Project. It is admitted that the possession was to be handed over by 25.8.2016  and the OPs applied for occupation certificate in April 2017 but due to delay on the part of competent authority to issue the occupation  certificate  the possession of the unit in question  was delayed. Denying any deficiency on its party all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.9 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 25.9.2020 it was proceeded against exparte.
4. OPs No. 2 to 6 and   has not filed separate reply and adopted the reply filed by OP No.1 vide separate statement dated 7.2.2024 of the counsel for OPs No.2 to 6.  Similarly OP No.8 also adopted the reply of OP No.1 on 3.8.2021.
5. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. The main grievance of the complainant is that buyer’s agreement was provided  by the Ops after one year 8 months of paying an amount of Rs.34,71,325/-. Moreover, it is alleged that the OPs have not paid the delayed compensation for the period of delay in handing over possession, which is more than the balance 5% amount to be paid by the complainant.
9. It is an admitted fact that the complainant paid the initial money on 24.6.2011 and the buyer’s agreement is dated 25.2.2013.
10. It is also admitted fact that the possession was required to be handed over by 21.4.2018 but the same was offered on 11.7.2020, for which no delayed compensation  as per buyer’s agreement Annexure C-8 was paid. There was a delay of around 2 years and 2 months and 20 days.
11. From the foregoing discussion it is apparent that  the buyer’s agreement was executed after delay of 1 year and 8 months  and  the OPs have  also not paid delayed compensation to the complainant and the said act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. 
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to handover possession of commercial unit in question  to the complainants and execute sale deed/conveyance deed..
2. to pay compensation to the complainants for delayed possession by way of interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period of  2 years, 2 months and 20 days after adjusting remaining 5% balance amount payable by the complainants towards the sale consideration of the unit.
3. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
4. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

13.      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.(ii) & (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) & (iv) above.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.