Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/310/2021

Amarpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Money Goyal adv

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	310 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	20.05.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	30.07.2024

 

 

 

 

1.  Amarpal Singh s/o Gobind Singh

2.  Ramanpreet Kaur w/o Wajinder Singh

    Both r/o H.No.1398, Sector 34, Chandigarh

             … … … Complainants

 

Versus

Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. having their office at Manohar Campus, SCO No.139-141, First Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Director.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Ms.Niharika Goel, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for Complainants.

Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Counsel for OP.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       By this common order, we propose to dispose off five connected consumer complaints i.e. present consumer complaint and four other consumer complaints, detailed below, having common questions of law & facts:-

 

1	2	3		4	5
Sr. No.	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Vs.	Opposite Party(s)  Name	Date of Filing
	310/2021	Amarpal Singh & anr.	Vs.	Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd.	20.05.2021
	732/2022	Hitender Pokhariyal	Vs.	M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & ors.	10.10.2022
	733/2022	Neelam Baluni	Vs.	M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & ors.	10.10.2022
	214/2023	Amit Sawhney & anr.	Vs.	Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & ors.	12.04.2023
	220/2023	Akshit Kapil	Vs.	Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & ors.	12.04.2023

 

 

2]       The facts are gathered from C.C.No.310/2021 – Amarpal Singh & anr. Vs. Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

 

3]       The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading that the complainants booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the project namely ‘Palm Garden’ in New Chandigarh Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali in the year 2011 by making payment of Rs.13,87,500/-, i.e. Rs.7,87,500/- on 21.12.2011, Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.12.2011, Rs.50,000/- on 22.12.2011 & Rs.2,50,000/- on 21.12.2011, being 30% of the total sale consideration money of the plot Rs.46,25,000/-.  At the time of taking of the said payment, the OP had assured the complainants that the project has a salable title and OP has all the requisite permission from the govt. departments. It is stated that an expression of interest for property in Palm Garden was executed on 21.12.2011 as per which the OP had confirmed that the complainants had booked a plot measuring 250 sq. yards at a total sale consideration money of Rs.18,500/- per sq. yards and acknowledge the receipt of amount of Rs.13,87,500/-. Copy of the expression of interest is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-1. It is stated that complainants kept on waiting for the OP to issue the letter of allotment and visited the office of OP number of times, but OP failed to offer the possession or letter of allotment till date despite receipt of amount of Rs.13,87,500/-, i.e. 30% of the total sale consideration money. It is pleaded that the complainants later came to know that the OP has collected the money from them without having necessary approvals, sanctions for the project.  Ultimately, the complainants demanded refund of their amount from the OP but the OP neither refunded the amount nor offered the possession of plot. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer that the complaint be accepted and the OP be directed to refund the deposited amount along with interest and to pay compensation & litigation costs etc.  

 

4]       After service of notice upon the OP, the OP appeared before this Commission and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about booking of plot and receipt of amounts so paid by the complainants towards it, as matter of record, stated that the OP never assured the complainants that the project has a salable title and the OP have all the requisite permissions from the govt. departments to sell the plots. It is submitted that the complainants only submitted expression of interest which did not entitle to final allotment of plot. It is also submitted that the complainants were well aware about the facts that at the time of booking, the approvals from the concerned authorities/government were awaited and only due to the said reason, they had submitted the expression of interest.  It is stated that the complainants are defaulter who had not come forward, despite request of OP, to deposit the remaining amount and remained silent for years. It is stated that the competent authority has granted completion period till 13.06.2018 towards the project of the OP which was thereafter extended upto 31.12.2022 and it is for the complainants to come forward to execute the Plot Buyer’s Agreement and comply with the terms and conditions but they have never came forward. It is stated that there was a considerable delay in approvals by the govt. for which the OP was not responsible. It is asserted that there was some procedural delay on the part of the Government in issuing the notification which is applicable to the project of the OP Company and formal notification in this regard has been issued.  It is pleaded that the OP Company has almost completed the development in that area and many families have already shifted in the said area of the project of the OP and residing happily. It is asserted that the complainants have never visited the site and the complainants have approached this Commission with malafide intention. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

6]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

7]       It is observed that the complainants have admittedly booked a residential Plot measuring 250 Sq. Yards in the subject project of the OP Company. It is also admitted fact that an amount of Rs.13,87,500/- had already been paid by the complainants to the OP Company towards the plot against its cost of Rs.46,25,000/- (Annexure C-1). However, the OP Company neither issued allotment letter nor executed Plot Buyer’s Agreement with the complainants in respect of the plot despite receipt of amount of Rs.13,87,500/- from them.  Moreover, the OP has also failed to justify the collection of amount by it from the complainants and booked the unit in question without having necessary sanctions, permissions and approvals to do so from all the concerned Competent Authorities.  The OP Company neither gave legal possession nor refunded the amount to the complainants which amounts to deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice adopted by OP for which complainants are entitled to be compensated for harassment & mental agony.  

 

8]       It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed:

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

 

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed:-

    “The appellants should have given firm date of handling 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.”

           Hence, the act of the Opposite Party to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the plot certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.    

9]       In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it is held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  Similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766), while holding as under:-

“…….We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[1]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[2]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [3] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [4] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms “consumer” and “service” under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :

“5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6):

“…when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act….”

 

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: -

    Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

 

10]      Under above mentioned facts, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OP, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainants but also caused them immense harassment & mental agony.

 

11]      Similar facts have been pleaded in other connected complaints, detailed above, and similar evidence has been led. Therefore, in all the five complaint cases, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP(s) is proved.

12]      Resultantly, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.13,87,500/- to the complainants alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. 

13]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.732/2022 – Hitender Pokhariyal vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & ors., also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Parties(OPs) are directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.13,87,500/- (Annexure C-2) to the complainant alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of its actual realization. 

14]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.733/2022 – Neelam Baluni vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & ors., also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Parties(OPs) are directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.13,87,500/- (Annexure C-2) to the complainant alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of its deposit till the date of its actual realization.

15]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.214/2023 – Amit Sawhney & anr. vs. Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & ors., also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Parties(OPs) are directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.22,50,000/- (Annexure C-1) to the complainants alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.

16]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.220/2023 – Akshit Kapil vs. Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & ors., also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Parties(OPs) are directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.22,50,000/- (Annexure C-1) to the complainant alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization

         This order be complied with by the OPs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

17]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.07.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER

as