BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 641 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          05.11.2014

                                                 Date of Decision:            23.07.2015

O.P. Gagneja son of Nand Lal resident of House No.417, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

M/s. Chandigarh Royale City Promoters Private Limited, site office Chandigarh Patiala Highway Village Karala, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Ajay Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Anish Garg, counsel for  the OP.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:

(a)    provide him copy of agreement, issue specific plot and deliver the possession of the plot

                                OR

        Return the deposited amount of Rs.4,12,500/- with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of receipt till realisation.

(b)    pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental torture, harassment, agony and pain.

(c)    pay him Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The case of the complainant is that he booked a plot measuring 150 sq. yards @ Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard  with the OP.  After that the complainant paid Rs.4,12,500/- to the OP on 03.06.2011 as per Gold Plan opted by him.  An agreement was signed between the complainant and the OP but the OP did not provide him copy of the agreement and also did not provide/allot the specific number of plot to the complainant till date.  The complainant received three letters dated 05.02.2013, 18.10.2013 and 25.02.2014 from the OP for making payment with heavy rate of interest. The complainant came to know that the size of the project is not which was mentioned in the brochure and also that the approvals from the competent authorities are pending and the project would not be completed in near future.  The complainant visited the spot but found that the OP had not completed the essential development works. The complainant requested the OP to either give him the possession or refund the deposited amount.  Till date the OP has not refunded him the amount. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.  OP has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is time barred and the amount was deposited by the complainant on 03.06.2011 and the complaint has been filed after lapse of more than three years and four months.  The complainant did not make payment as demanded by the OP vide letters dated 05.03.2013, 18.10.2013 and 25.02.2014. The complainant even never demanded from the OP his deposited amount.  The complainant was informed vide letter dated 05.02.2013 regarding development of the site and also asked him to execute the buyers agreement but he never turned up.  This Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present dispute.  Due to recession in the market, the complainant had not paid the remaining amounts as he had booked the plot for commercial purposes and for gaining profits.  On merits, the OP has denied the averments of the complainant and sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Anu Kumar Sharma, its authorised signatory Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-31.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

6.             The complainant is a consumer who has availed the services of the OP being developer of land upon consideration for purchase of fully developed plot of 150 sq. yard at the agreed rate of Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard. The complainant has signed buyers agreement and as per the buyers agreement the complainant has paid Rs.4,12,500/-  vide Ex.C-2 on 03.06.2011. The complainant has opted for Plan-C i.e. Gold Plan for making payment of the agreed consideration.  As per the agreed payment plan, the complainant was to make payment of Rs.3,75,000/- after the OP gets necessary approval for development of the site from the competent authorities. Since the OP has never shown the approvals in its favour and never demanded the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from the complainant, the complainant  never made the payment and without issuance of demand notice of Rs.3,75,000/- the OP issued demand notice dated 05.02.2013 Ex.C-3 stating that the approvals have been received on 31.12.2012 and asked the complainant to pay Rs.9,82,500/-. The complainant did not make the payment as upon enquiry it was found that the OP has not got any approvals for the 150 sq. yard plot. Without even showing the approvals, the OP further issued demand notice dated 18.10.2013 followed by Ex.C-5 dated 25.02.2014. When the complainant visited the site, he found nothing on the site though he was willing and ready to make the payment.  Therefore, the complainant asked the OP to either deliver possession of fully developed plot or refund the deposited amount.  Till date neither the offer of possession of fully developed plot has been made nor has the deposited amount been refunded. Therefore, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

7.             It is admitted by the OP as per the inscription made in hand on Ex.C-3 that it has not received the approvals for 150 sq. yard plot as on 19.02.2013. Thus, demand of Rs.9,82,500/- as shown in Ex.C-3 by the OP per se is an act of unfair trade practice on its part.  It is well settled preposition of law as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., 2007 (2) CLT 440 that a developer collecting money from the consumers without having proper and necessary sanctions in its favour from the competent authorities has indulged into unfair trade practice. The facts of the present complaint are squarely covered as is evident from admission of the OP on Ex.C-3 that no necessary approvals are in its favour for development of 150 sq. yard plot against which it has received the payment from complainant. Thus the OP has indulged into unfair trade practice for inducing the complainant to purchase a plot without having requisite approvals.

8.             The complaint, therefore, is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:

(a)    refund to the complainant his deposited amount of Rs.4,12,500/- (Rs. Four lacs twelve thousand five hundred only) with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment.

(b)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.30,000/-  (Rs. Thirty thousand only) for mental pain, agony and harassment including costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

July 23, 2015.     

                             (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member