Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/237/2024

TRIPTA ARORA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD CHANDIGARH CITI CENTER AND ANR - Opp.Party(s)

NP SHARMA AND GAURAV BHARDWAJ

13 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	237  of 2024
Date of Institution	:	01.07.2024
Date of Decision	:	13.11.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Tripta Arora, w/o Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, R/O H.no 154, SECTOR -11, Chandigarh (U.T.)-160011

Mobile No.88470-76175

Email:-tripta147arora@gmail.com

…Appellant/complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Managing Director, Chandigarh Citi Center, (CCC) Through its Partners Vijay Jindal, VIP Road, Zirakpur District Mohali 140603.

 

….Respondent No.1/ opposite party no.1

 

2. Chandigarh Citi Center (CCC) Developers Through its Partners Vijay Jindal, VIP Road, Zirakpur District Mohali 140603,

….Respondent No.2/ opposite party no.2

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Present:-    Ms.Tripta Arora, appellant in person.

                   Sh.Ammish Goel, Advocate for  respondent no.1

                   Ms.Divya Jyoti, Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The appellant/complainant has come up in this appeal  for modification of the order dated 11.03.2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaint bearing no.739 of 2021 filed by her was  allowed  as under:-

“…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.12,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of offer of possession i.e. 15.7.2019 till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.40,000/- 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.

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......”

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that she had purchased a dwelling unit/office space  No.644, 6^th floor, Block D and E in Chandigarh City Centre, Zirakpur from the opposite parties, for total sale consideration of Rs.22 lacs. It was stated that the complainant had paid the entire amount through cheque to the tune of Rs.12.00 lakh and Rs.10.00 lakh in cash. As per clause of allotment letter, possession of the unit in question was to be handed over within a period of 18 months from the date of start of construction  with  grace period of 6 months. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the opposite parties were paying 1% interest  on the aforesaid amount till handing over of the said possession. However, the opposite parties failed to execute a formal Buyer’s Agreement with the complainant. It was alleged that the opposite parties have failed to handover possession of the unit in question within the stipulated period and even stopped giving 1% interest, for cash amount paid by the complainant  for last 8 months. Thus the complainant sent representation dated 15.12.2019 to the opposite parties in the matter. However, when she visited the project site, she was shocked to see that even the basic structure of the unit was not complete and as such  the opposite parties were not in a position to hand over the possession thereof. When the opposite parties neither handed over the possession of the unit nor refunded the deposited amount the complainant sent a legal notice in the matter but no avail. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           In the reply filed, opposite party no.2 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that after taking partial completion certificate/occupation certificate from the competent authorities  the complainant was offered possession of the unit in question vide letter dated 15.7.2019 and reminder letters were also issued to her to clear the remaining dues and take the possession,  but she failed to do so. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong.
4.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of  opposite party no.1, as a result of which, it was proceeded against exparte by the District Commission vide order dated 21.10.2022.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the documents on record,  allowed  the complaint in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7.            Alongwith this appeal bearing no.237 of 2024, the appellant/complainant has also filed application bearing no.578 of 2024 for condonation of delay of 43 days (as per office 36 days) in filing the same. Reply to this application has been filed by respondent no.1.
8.           Arguments of the contesting parties on this application heard.
9.           For the reasons stated in this application, we are of the considered view that the appellant/complainant has been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring this appeal within the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, this application stand allowed and the delay of 43 days (as per office 36 days)  in filing the said appeal  is condoned. Accordingly, this application stands dispose off.
10.           We have heard the contesting parties in the main appeal and scanned the material available on the record, including written arguments.
11.           Before this Commission, the appellant has fervently raised the contention that, despite the fact that she has proved before the District Commission that she had paid an amount of Rs.22 lacs and not Rs.12 lacs, yet, the  District Commission erred in its judgment by overlooking this fact and in turn, ordered refund of  amount of Rs.12 lacs only alongwith interest, over and above, compensation for mental agony and harassment and also litigation expenses. She further submitted that as such, the order impugned needs modification and respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.22 lacs instead of Rs.12 lacs, alongwith ancillary reliefs of interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
12.           It may be stated here that though the appellant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.22 lakhs to the respondents and not Rs.12 lacs, but upon careful examination of the evidence, the appellant has failed to prove such payment of Rs.22 lacs to the respondents. There is no credible documentary evidence, such as bank statements, receipts, or any other formal records, that substantiate the claim of Rs.22 lakhs being paid to the respondents. The appellant’s oral assertion, unsupported by any reliable evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of such a substantial payment.
13.           Furthermore, it is evident from the records that the respondents have provided an assured return to the tune of Rs.10,800/- per month, on the sum of Rs.12 lakhs at the rate of 12% per annum, as per their commitment made vide letter dated 09.10.2016, attached alongwith Annexure C-2 (at page 37 of the paper book of the District Commission).  The appellant has not raised any objection to this calculation of interest @12%  p.a. on the amount of Rs.12 lacs only or to the disbursement of the assured return, which was paid over the period from 2016 to 2019. The appellant had ample opportunity to challenge the amount of the said return on Rs.12 lacs only and not on allegedly paid Rs.22 lacs, but no objection was ever raised by her during the relevant period. The appellant’s failure to do so leads to the inference that she accepted the interest payments made by the respondents as being correct and in line with the terms of the allotment letter, on the amount of Rs.12 lacs only.
14.           As far as reliance placed by the appellant on Banks’ Account Statement dated 21.08.2021, Annexure-2, showing the details of withdrawals of various amounts totalling to Rs.12 lakhs  made on various dates throughout the year 2016, out of which she claimed to have paid Rs.10 lacs, in cash to the opposite parties is concerned, it is important to clarify that the mere withdrawal of this amount does not necessarily imply that the funds were actually paid to the respondents in cash thereafter, over and above another amount of Rs.12 lacs. This assumption cannot be substantiated, particularly in the absence of any documented cash receipts or other supporting evidence to confirm the payment of the said amount to the respondents. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between the act of withdrawal and the actual transfer of funds, in cash, especially in the absence of corroborative proof of cash disbursement.
15.           As far as reliance placed by the appellants on certain cash receipts ( Annexure -6 colly.) are concerned, it may be stated here that from these receipts, it is not coming out that the appellant had paid Rs.22 lacs to the respondents or that this amount of return has been paid to the appellant for the amount of Rs.10 lacs, allegedly paid by her to the respondents, over and above Rs.12 lacs.  As such, no help can be drawn by the appellant from these receipts. 
16.           For the reasons stated above, the appellant has failed to prove that she made a payment of Rs.22 lakhs and, on the other hand, the respondents have adequately demonstrated that the interest on the principal sum of Rs.12 lakhs was calculated and paid correctly @12% p.a. thereupon, after deducting TDS amount therefrom. The District Commission was therefore right in ordering refund of amount of Rs.12 lacs only alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
17.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission and the same stands upheld.
18.           Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost. However, in the interest of justice, we hereby grant the liberty to the appellant/complainant to pursue any other legal remedy available to her for the recovery of the remaining alleged amount of Rs.10 lacs paid to the respondents, in cash, over and above Rs.12 lacs aforsaid.
19.           All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
20.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
21.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission-I, U.T, Chandigarh, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

13.11.2024

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Rg.