Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/502/2018

Bhisham Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Mohan Sharma

24 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/502/2018
Date of Institution	:	08/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	24/08/2020

 

Bhisham Sharma son of Sh. Shri Bhagwan Sharma presently residing at H.No.359, Sector 15, Panchkula (Haryana) and also having his correspondence address as c/o Shri Bhagwan Sharma Village & PO Badiya Brahmanan, District-Hisar (Haryana)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Office SCO 196-197, Top Floor, Sector 34A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director namely Tejinder Pal Setia M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Office SCO 249, Basement, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director namely Tejinder Pal Setia

Second Address :

M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited Office at Fashion Technology Park (Next to BSF Housing Complex) Sector 90, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Director namely Tejinder Pal Setia.

3^rd Address :

M/s Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited through its Director namely Tejinder Pal Setia having his residence at H.No.138, First Floor, Bhera Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110087, Delhi, India.

… Opposite Party

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

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. D.S. Sobti, Counsel for OP

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The allegations in brief are, in the year 2006, OP had launched its project known as Fashion Technology Park, Sector 90, SAS Nagar (Mohali) and the same was widely advertised.  With a view to secure livelihood by way of self employment, the complainant approached the OP for purchase of a unit measuring 100 sq. ft. and the consideration was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/-.  His case is, OP also assured return as well as buy-back offer at the time of initial negotiation. Initially, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 25.11.2006 through cheque. After a few months, complainant approached the OP to confirm about the payment of second installment and to receive the allotment letter, however, it was told OP has not obtained the necessary sanctions/approvals from the competent authority.  No traces were found on the spot qua the coming up of the project, therefore, the remaining installments were not paid. The OP lingered the matter, but, despite demand neither refunded the deposited amount of Rs.1,25,000/- nor the assured handing over of the unit, intended to be purchased on receipt of the pending consideration. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1,25,000/- alongwith interest; pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objection of complainant not being the consumer.  Its case is, the consumer complaint has become time barred and the project has suffered from force majeure and now the cost of construction has increased more than 100%. Maintained, the matter was fought at various levels as well as before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and due to this reason neither the amount could be refunded nor the possession of the allotted unit could be handed over on receipt of the pending payment.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for OP and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, the receipt of the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by the OP is an undisputed fact before us.  Not only this, even it is also admitted case, complainant intended to purchase the unit measuring 100 sq. ft. on consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and part payment of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid to the OP.  These facts are not in dispute before us at all.
7.     The OP has raised technical objection of the consumer complaint being time barred.  However, we may refer here, limitation to file a consumer complaint, as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.  It is own admitted case of the OP in its reply and evidence, the project was suspended on account of force majeure and the matter was fought before the concerned authorities as well as the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.  Even no refusal was conveyed by the OP to the complainant.  Rather it is being set up, now the prices have increased 100%. This shows, claim of the complainant was never denied by the OP and the cause of action will arise as and when the claim was denied and here, in the present case, it is continuing one till the possession is delivered on receipt of the remaining payment of the agreed amount, which the complainant was ready to pay.  Hence, the present consumer complaint, which was filed on 8.10.2018, is perfectly within the prescribed time i.e. within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action.
8.     Another technical objection raised by the OP is, complainant is not a consumer as it was a commercial unit which was intended to be purchased by him.  We may refer to the averments made in paragraph No.2 which shows, the complainant, in order to secure his livelihood and with a view to have some income by way of self employment, had approached the OP for the purchase of a unit measuring 100 sq. ft.  Thus, with a view to earn livelihood by way of self employment the unit was intended to be purchased and as such the complainant had covered himself within the definition of a defined consumer.  It is not the pleading or any evidence led by the OP of complainant being a businessman and has been established as such and in order to expand his business, he intended to purchase this commercial unit. Under these circumstances, the averments made, which are supported by way of affidavit to the effect in order to secure his livelihood by way of self employment, the complainant had intended to purchase the unit, stands fully proved. Hence, we record a finding, complainant is a defined consumer so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.
9.     The OP neither handed over the possession on receipt of the remaining payment, which the complainant was ready to pay, nor had refunded the amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, lying deposited with it for the  last more than 12 years and rather dilly  dallied the matter.  It is not the case of the OP, it had terminated the contract, but, it stood by the agreed terms and conditions of the contract. Hence, the OP is proved to be deficient in rendering service and the present consumer deserves to succeed.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 25.11.2006 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- 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.

11.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it 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.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/08/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President