STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

1.  Dr. Sandeep Kumar, age 51 years s/o Sh. B.K. Aggarwal.
2.  Nishu Bala, age about 51 years, W/o Dr. Sandeep Kumar

Both R/o H.No.2261, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                       ……Appellants

                                         V e r s u s

M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office Unit No.B-107, Business Complex at Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory

                                                                            ...Respondent

             Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,

           2019 against order dated 13.05.2022 passed by District                                Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I,                            U.T.Chandigarh in  Consumer Complaint No.165/2021.

Argued by:  Mr. Somesh Gupta,Advocate for the appellants.                             

                       Mr. Vishal Singal,Advocate proxy for

                       Mr. Sanjeev  Sharma,Advocate for the respondent. 

Devanshi, age 24 years, D/o Dr. Sandeep Kumar, R/o   H.No.2261, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

                                                                             -Appellant 

                                              Versus

M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office Unit No.B-107, Business Complex at Elante Mall, 1st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory

...Respondent

               Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,

                       2019 against order dated 13.05.2022 passed by District                                         Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I,                                          U.T.Chandigarh in  Consumer Complaint No.187/2021

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

 Argued by: : Mr. Somesh Gupta,Advocate for the appellant.                            

                          Mr. Vishal Singal,Advocate proxy for

                          Mr. Sanjeev  Sharma,Advocate for the respondent. 

PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                 This  order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos.98 of 2022  titled as Dr.Sandeep Kumar & another Vs M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.  and  No.99 of 2022 titled as Devanshi Vs M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., involving identical questions of facts and law, and both filed  against common order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T.Chandigarh (for short ‘the Ld.Lower Commission) allowing both complaints bearing No.CC165/2021 filed by the complainant Dr.Sandeep Kumar & another and Consumer Complaint No.187/2021 filed Devanshi against the same Opposite Party.     To dictate order, the facts are being taken from  appeal No.98 of 2022 titled as Dr.Sandeep Kumar & another Vs M/s Amazing Real estate Pvt. Ltd.

2.              As per facts in the complaint, the  complainants allured by rosy pictures shown through advertisements by the Opposite Party,  on 3.10.2016 applied for a flat of 1355 sq. ft., Unit No.B607, 6th Floor at Tower B in its  Project Joynest Moh 1, PR-7 Airport Ring Road, Near Aerocity, SAS Nagar (Mohali) against basic sale price of ₹30,00,000/-. The said  project belonged to Sushma Group and the complainants opted for construction linked payment plan, but, neither the OP executed buyer’s agreement with the complainants nor issued the allotment letter dated 23.2.2017, reference of which was given in various letters received from the OP. The grouse  of the complainant  in consumer complaint was  that despite making payment of ₹31,96,081/- on various dates against basic sale price of the Unit of Rs.30,00,000/-, still  OP vide possession reminder dated 10.10.2020 raised total outstanding demand of ₹6,09,887/- on account of  different heads. The complainants met the officials of the OP a number of times and tried to persuade them that they have already paid the basic cost of the Unit/flat plus other charges and were ready to deposit the last installment payable at the time of possession as well, provided at least the project be completed with basic facilities. It was alleged that  at the time of booking i.e. 3.10.2016, OP did not even have basic approvals to start the project.  However, instead of looking into the grievances of the complainants, OP started sending threatening letters and sent possession termination letter dated 12.11.2020 despite the fact that the complainants were regularly paying the installments. The construction work was in initial stage but installments were almost paid by the end of year 2018 but still complainants received termination notice dated 26.3.2018 and then cancellation of Allotment vide letter dated 19.5.2018. Thereafter,  OP vide possession cancellation letter dated 18.12.2020 raised total outstanding demand of ₹6,33,111/- from the complainants and ultimately vide letter dated 14.1.2021 intimated possession cancellation of the allotment. The complainants sent legal notice dated 12.2.2021 to the OP calling upon it to withdraw the letter dated 14.1.2021 and to execute Buyer’s Agreement  clearly stipulating therein by which date project would be complete in all respects, but, to no effect.  It was further  alleged that the project in question,  complete in all respects, was to be handed over by the OP within 24 months from the date of booking, but, it failed to do so and even has not provided the various promised basic amenities, as detailed in  its brochure. Alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld.Lower Commission seeking restoration of allotment of the Unit, hand over possession of the Flat, complete in all respects and other allied reliefs.

3.              Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared  and contested the complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission by filing reply admitting the fact of allotment of Apartment/Unit, in question, to the complainants.   However, it stated  that the project is RERA registered and was to be completed by 29.7.2022 (extended to 28.1.2023 due to COVID spread) as per RERA declaration. It was further stated the complainants failed to execute buyer’s agreement despite repeated requests. It was alleged that the complainants are investors/speculators and their intention is to sell apartments, on completion, for getting profit. It was stated that the Unit of the complainants was complete and its possession was offered on 7.9.2020, but, the complainants failed to take the same and allotment of the said Unit  stood cancelled and for claiming possession only civil suit was maintainable before the civil court. It was alleged that the complainants were regular defaulters and on earlier occasions also allotment of their Unit was cancelled and terminated due to non-payment of installments and other dues in time. The complainants were served termination letter dated 26.3.2018, show cause notice for cancellation of allotment dated 23.4.2018, show cause notice for cancellation of allotment dated 19.5.2018, termination letter dated 28.6.2018, show cause notice for cancellation of allotment dated 18.7.2018 and finally cancellation of allotment dated 1.8.2018.  On many occasions, complainants defaulted in making timely payments and hence, they were liable to pay interest on delayed remittances. According to the OP, an amount of ₹4,62,846/- was due from the complainants as on 8.9.2020 alongwith offer of possession dated 7.9.2020. It was further stated that maintenance charges are payable upon possession   to the maintenance agency till maintenance of the project is taken over by the residents welfare organization.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.          Both parties led evidence.  The Ld. Lower Commission, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed   the complaint granting following relief to   the complainants ;

CC/165/2021

1. To restore the allotment of unit in question, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without demanding any interest on the payments already made, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of cancellation of the unit in question till restoration thereof. With regard to the payment of GST, we pass an order to give 4% rebate to the complainants as well, as earlier decided by Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in similar kind of consumer complaints against the same OP.
2. To immediately hand over possession of the apartment/flat complete in all respects alongwith modular kitchen and designated car parking slot.
3. To issue fresh statement of accounts to the complainants after adjusting GST, interest, penalty and cost as imposed upon the OP in the present order.
4. To pay ₹25,000/- to the complainants for filing a frivolous application, as held above and further to pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
5. to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

Similarly in other complaint bearing No.187 of 2021, the following relief was granted ;

CC/187/2021

1. To restore the allotment of unit in question, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without demanding any interest on the payments already made, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of cancellation of the unit in question till restoration thereof. With regard to the payment of GST, we pass an order to give 4% rebate to the complainants as well, as earlier decided by Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in similar kind of consumer complaints against the same OP.
2. To immediately hand over possession of the apartment/flat complete in all respects alongwith modular kitchen and designated car parking slot.
3. To issue fresh statement of accounts to the complainant after adjusting GST, interest, penalty and cost as imposed upon the OP in the present order.
4. To pay an amount of ₹1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
5. to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 5.             Aggrieved against the common order passed by the Ld.Lower Commission, in both the complaints, complainants have filed separate appeals for enhancement of compensation on account of mental agony and harassment from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and to grant interest on the installments already paid @ 12% p.a. from the date, each installment was paid till possession of the flat complete in all respects is offered.

6.             When granting relief to the complainants/appellants , the Ld Lower Commission observed as under; 

“Under these circumstances, it is held that by cancelling the allotment of the unit in question on the ground that complainants were defaulters in making remaining payment especially in the face of reason that there was no buyer’s agreement and already substantial amount (around 90%) stood paid, OP adopted unfair trade practice and also is guilty of providing deficient services to the complainants. As such, we order restoration of allotment of the unit in question, subject to payment of last installment by the complainants. The cancellation/ termination letters issued by the OP in respect of the said unit stand quashed. Since, it has already been held that payments were received by the OP, contrary to the payment schedule/stage of construction and also about 90% of the basic sale price already stood paid by the complainants, it is held that the complainants are not liable to pay any delayed payment interest to the OP on the payments already made and demand of ₹1,20,815/- by OP as maintenance charges (Annexure R-10) payable in advance for three years to the maintenance agency is also quashed. The OP is warned to be cautious in future while raising further demands, strictly as per the payment schedule/stages of construction and development at the project site.

7.                   It was observed by the Ld.Lower Commission that in the face of reason that there was no Buyer’s Agreement and already substantial amount (around 90%) stood paid, OP/respondent adopted unfair trade practice and is also guilty of providing deficient service to the complainants/ appellants. Consequently, the Ld. Lower
Commission ordered restoration of allotment of the Unit and quashed the cancellation/termination letters issued by the respondent. The allotment was ordered to be restored, without demanding any interest on the payments already made.  With regard to payment of GST, a rebate of 4% was ordered to be given to the appellants. The appellants were also given the relief  of not paying any delayed payment interest to the respondent on the payments already made and quashed the demand of Rs.1,20,815/-  as maintenance charges which were required to be paid by the appellants. The Ld. Lower Commission also granted Rs.1.00 Lakh  as compensation to the appellants  on account of mental agony and harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation. Further, respondent has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the appellants for filing a frivolous application before the Ld Lower Commission.

8.             After going through the contents of appeal and the order passed, we are satisfied that the relief granted by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite reasonable and in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case. We find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. Accordingly the order of the Ld. Lower Commission being perfectly justified, is upheld.  

 9.             For the reasons recorded above, both  the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs. 

10.                    Certified copies of this order, be placed on the file of Appeal bearing No.99 of 2022 

         11.                       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

  12.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.