Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/728/2022

BALJIT SINGH GILL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s AMAZING REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JASWINDER SINGH

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/728/2022
Date of Institution	:	17.8.2022
Date of Decision	:	8/4/2024

             

Baljit Singh Gill aged 60 years son of Balbir Singh R/o H.No. HM 326, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. through its director, Unit No. B- 107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

2. Binder Pal Mittal director M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. B-107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

3. Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd. (erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.) through its authorized person, SCO 811-812, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/729/2022
Date of Institution	:	17.8.2022
Date of Decision	:	8/4/2024

 

Dimpy Gill aged about 30 years D/o Sh. Baljit Singh Gill R/o H.No. HM 326, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. through its director, Unit No. B- 107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

2. Binder Pal Mittal director M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. B-107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

3. Piramal Capital Housing Finance Ltd. (erstwhile Dewan Housing Finance Ltd.) through its authorized person, SCO 811-812, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

….Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jaswinder Singh Bagga, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for OP No.3. (through VC)

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2022 titled as Baljit Singh Gill Vs. M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt.Ltd.& Ors.
3. Briefly stated the complainant booked one flat  in the project of OP No.1 under subvention scheme for a sale consideration of Rs.34,90,000/-. At the time of booking the complainant made earnest money of Rs.3,05,300/-  to the OP No.1. Unit Buyer’s Agreement dated 30.12.2017 was executed vide which OP No.1 agreed  for subvention payment plan and agreed to make payment of interest of the loan raised from OP No.3 upto the date of possession. allured with the subvention scheme, the complainant booked the flat in question with OPs No.1&2 and applied for loan with OP No.3  and OP No.3 has sanctioned loan amount of Rs.29,94,823/- out of which Rs.26,92,595/-  was only disbursed by OP No.3 to OP No.1. As per subvention scheme  the OP No.1 started paying interest but only upto March 2019 and stopped paying interest thereafter. The complainant approached the OPs No.1&2 many time to pay the interest  under subvention scheme as OP No.3 was pressing for payment of regular EMIs/PEMIs but nothing was done by the OPs No.1&2. Even the OP No.3 did not disburse the remaining loan amount. Since the OPs No.1&2 did not pay the interest as such the complainant has to pay EMIOs for one year to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. To utter surprise of the complainant the OP No.1 vided letter dated 14.4.2021 illegally cancelled the unit in question and the same was also published in the newspaper on 21.3.2021. Feeling aggrieved the complainant issued legal notice to Ops on 30.4.2021 and sought refund of the earnest money alongwith interest  but t o no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid act amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.   
4.  OPs No.1&2 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that UNIT BUYER'S AGREEMENT was executed between the parties on 30.12.2017 and the possession of the Apartment Unit was to be delivered in a time period of 48 months including a grace period of 6 months from the date of execution of the UNIT BUYER'S AGREEMENT on 30.12.2017 subject to timely payments of installments by the complainant. The payment plan opted by the complainant was Construction Linked Payment plan.  The total cost of the Unit was Rs. 37,82,400/- and the complainant was obligated to make the entire payment of Rs.37,82,000/- as per the construction linked plan agreed upon by the complainant. The complainant was also given lucrative returns of Subvention Plan on his investment and the answering respondents have also made payments of Rs.2,19,613 to the complainant in lieu of subvention plan on the investment and purchase made by the complaint in the project. The Complainant himself became habitual defaulter in making timely payments as per the terms and conditions agreed upon in the UNIT BUYER'S AGREEMENT dated 30.12.2017 and despite repeated reminders and demand letters had paid only Rs.27,53,300/- till date and an amount of Rs.10,24,342/- was outstanding against the complainant towards the unit in question. The complainant had booked the unit under construction linked plan and after the payment of earnest money the complainants paid due installments till some time however later he started delaying the installments and eventually he stopped paying the installments, as per the payment schedule. The opposite parties gave ample time and opportunity to the complainant to make the due payments however the complainants miserably failed to regularize his account. Since non timely payment of installments hamper the smooth progress of project and would result in delay of construction of unit as well as project as a whole, so after providing numerous opportunities to complainant, the opposite parties were constrained to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount as per agreed terms and conditions of the buyer agreement.
5. OP No.3 in its reply  admitted that the complainant has applied for and loan amount of Rs.26,92,595/- was disbursed to the complainant. it is alleged that the complainant is defaulter in making payment of monthly installment and not regularized his account despite of repeated request and reminders and even several cheques were dishonoured. Denying any deficiency on the part of the answering OP a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
7. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
9. It is an admitted fact that the complainant could not pay the balance payment of Rs.5 lakh when the same was payable to OP No.1 and the OP No.1 stopped release of interest. We are not constrained to believe the version of the complainant that he could not pay the balance money payable to OP No.1 as OP No.3 did not release the said amount, however the complainant himself admitted that he had no hard cash  to pay the same to OP No.1. Thus, there is no merit in the version of the complainant and the complainant is a defaulter in making to the OP No.1.
10. So far as the act of OP No.3 for recovery of loan amount from the complainant, it is observed that the OP No.3 had  initiated  arbitration proceedings against the complainant and the arbitrator has passed an award Annexure R-3  placed on record by OP No.3 against the complainant and in favour of OP No.3. Moreover,  it has come on record that the complainant has challenged  the said award before the District Court as is evident from Annexure R-4 placed record by OP No.3.
11. Thus from the foregoing we are of the opinion that this Commission cannot initiate any proceedings against the OP No.3, Thus, both the  complaints have no merit and both the above captioned complaints are liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the above consumer complaints, being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs
13. A copy of this order be also placed in aforementioned connected complaint.

4.     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/-

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member