DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/235/2022
Date of Institution: 11.11.2022
Date of Decision: 09.12.2024
1. Davinder Kumar son of Jiwan Lal resident of Kothi No. 222, Sector 12-A, Panchkula, Haryana-134112.
2. Ravinder Kumar son of Jiwan Lal resident of Kothi No. 222, Sector 12-A, Panchkula, Haryana-134112.
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager.
2. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana-140001 through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016 through its Managing Director.
4. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, PUDA Complex, Master Tara Singh Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala through its Chief Administrative Officer.
5. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Barnala through its Executive Engineer Sub-Urban Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal Adv counsel for complainants.
Smt. Anu Sharma Adv counsel for opposite parties 1 & 3.
Opposite party No. 2 deleted.
Sh. Satpal Sharma Adv counsel for opposite party No. 4.
Sh. S.K. Kotia Adv counsel for opposite party No. 5.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainants have filed the present complaint under The Consumer Protection Act against M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainants was allotted Plot No. 120 measuring 150 sq.yds @ Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yads i.e. totaling Rs. 9,00,000/- in the Dynamic Continental Pvt. Ltd., at Dhanaula Road, Barnala on dated 21.6.2010 and the opposite parties accepted the amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 16.6.2010, Rs. 1,70,000/- on dated 21.6.2010, Rs. 1,25,000/- on dated 11.1.2011, Rs. 1,45,000/- on dated 13.1.2011 from the allottee Mr. Parkash Chand of said plot, now the name of said colony has been changed on 29.12.2010 as Curo India Pvt. Ltd. The said plot was transferred to the names of complainants vide transfer letter dated 10.8.2011, as such the complainants stepped into the shoe of Parkash Chand original allottee of the said plot. It is further alleged that the complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- vide receipt dated 10.8.2011 and Rs. 60,000/- in cash was deposited with the opposite parties. On 8.9.2011 the sale deed was executed by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants on collector rates and supplied copy of broacher promising basic amenities and other ultra modern amenities and facilities to enhance style and swiftication, luxurious villas, club with swimming pool, shopping centre, nursery school for kids, well designed lush green parks. It is further alleged that a wide range indeed catering to individual cum family needs of the future residents and all modern amenities like 24 x 7 availability of water, power backup and underground power cable will be provided. It is further alleged that on trusting the words of the opposite parties, the complainants purchased the said plot in the said colony and the opposite parties gave the complainants one brochure mentioning the best qualities/features of the colony and also told the complainant that the plot buyers will enjoy the most luxurious and natural living in the said colony and the colony will be developed within one year. It is alleged that at the time of executing the sale deed dated 8.9.2011 only symbolic possession was given to the complainants. It is further alleged that till date they have not obtained the certificate from PUDA that they have completed the basic amenities as promised by them. No terms and conditions and payment plan was supplied to the complainants at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further alleged that the complainants approached the opposite parties many a times for the purpose of demarcation and possession of plot alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by the opposite parties but all in vain. It is alleged that the complainant served a registered legal notice dated 25.3.2022 through counsel but the opposite parties did not give satisfactory reply. It is further alleged that the complainants visited the site of the said colony many times to watch what is the progress at the site but there was only one watchman at the site and very sad to see that no development work was done and nothing seems to be done soon and no one has constructed house in the said colony. It is further alleged that the complainants approached the opposite parties to get the possession of said plot alongwith basic amenities as promised by them or for the refund of deposited amount but the opposite parties avoided the complainant on pretext or the other and some days ago flatly refused to refund the amount. The act of the opposite parties is not only a deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
- To give possession of the plot No. 120 having an area of 150 sq. yds. alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by them or refund the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of payments till realization. The opposite party No. 4 may be directed to submit the NOC issued to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that they have completed all the development works after getting all NOC’s of departments. The opposite party No. 5 may be directed to submit the record pertaining to deposit of own transformer fee for installing the transformer in the colony and load passed for the colony.
- To pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary submission and objections interalia on the grounds that the opposite parties were registered under the companies act, 1956, under the name of “Dynamic Continental (P) Ltd.” which name was duly changed on 29.12.2010 to “Curo India Pvt. Ltd.” after completion of procedures established under the companies act. It is further alleged that the complainant does not qualify to fall within the definition of Consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant booked the said plot for the purpose of resale i.e. for commercial purpose and profits. It is alleged that the cause of action is alleged to have lastly arisen on 8.9.2011, whereas the permissible limitation period is two years. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is further alleged that in the case in hand no allotment letter was issued to the complainant and the status of the transaction between the parties was only that of booking of plot against future payments and the allotment letter was to be issued only after the payment of balance consideration of said plot. It is further alleged that no particulars much less material particulars have been set out in the purported complaint, which shows any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Commission etc.
4. On merits, it is submitted that the complainants made up their mind to purchase the plot on the promise and assurance of earlier proposed allottee Mr. Parkash Chand and the contract was between the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand and at the time of execution of sale deed on 08.09.2011, no brochure as alleged was supplied to the complainants. It is further submitted that relying upon the affidavits of the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand the sale deed was got executed in favour of the complainants and no promise as alleged in the complaint was ever made by the opposite parties to the complainants, as such, there arises no question of complainants trusting the words of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that no big hoardings/advertisement were put up in Barnala displaying the alleged facilities and neither complainants trusted the words of the opposite parties, rather the complainants trusted the words of Mr. Parkash Chand. It is alleged that the complainants had purchased the plot only to make profits i.e. for commercial purpose. The complainants are well settled in Panchkula, having their work and businesses at Panchkula and their kids are studying in Panchkula and their chances of shifting to Barnala are very bleak and no reason has been assigned in the complaint as to why the complainants intend to shift to Barnala and no proposed time of their shifting to Barnala has been candidly mentioned. The complainants have concocted a false story, which is further proved from the fact that since 08.09.2011 there is no attempt on their part to start construction on their plot. After the execution of sale deed the possession was given to the complainants and the fault/deficiency, if any, lies on their part. It is submitted that Dynamic Homes is PUDA approved colony. All the street lights and external electrification work has been completed. Genset Backup is already installed at the site. The sewage lines as per NBC norms have already been laid and tested. Drinking as well as irrigation water lines have also been laid and tested as per NBC norms. All parks have been completed and being maintained. It is denied that no basic facility has been provided at the site as promised. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the arena of opposite parties vide order dated 10.1.2023.
6. The opposite party No. 4 filed written version by taking legal objection on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainants have not come with clean hands. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decided the present complaint etc.
7. On merits, it is submitted that Vyeman Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. having its headquarters at New Delhi had applied for obtaining license to develop colony under the name and style of Dynamic Homes, Ph-II, village Dhanala Khurd, District Barnala having area of 9.94 acres (Drg. No. Jobs No DH-2/ dated 26.08.2010) and after competition of all the formalities, the above mentioned license was issued which was valid from 28.10.2010 to 27.10.2013 and its renewed upto 31.12.2022. It is further submitted that the answering opposite party No.4 has no concern whatsoever with the amount deposited by the complainants with the office of opposite party No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and office of opposite party No. 4 was only liable to issue license to the complainants for development of the colony. As such, there is no other liability of the office of opposite party No. 4. But the complainants in order to harass and humiliate the officials of opposite party No. 4 have filed the present complaint. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
8. The opposite party No. 5 also filed written version by taking legal objections on the grounds that the present complaint is sheer misuse of process of law because, the complainants, with pre-malafide intent to collect evidence, made the answering opposite party as party to the complaint and managed to serve a notice upon the answering OP without any cause of action or locus-standi. It is humbly submitted that neither the answering department is party to any contract nor any contract between the complainant and answering OP has taken place at any point of time and the answering opposite party is not service provider to the complainant in any manner. The present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party. On merits, the opposite party No. 5 denied all the allegations of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
9. The complainant on 21.3.2022 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder.
10. The complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, application as Ex.C-2, copy of Acceptance letter as Ex.C-3, copy of receipts are Ex.C-4 to C-7, copy of allotment letter as Ex.C-8 (containing 10 pages), copy of receipt as Ex.C-9, copy of sale deed as Ex.C-10 (containing 11 pages), copy of brochure as Ex.C-11 (containing 4 pages) and closed the evidence.
11. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 tendered into evidence copy of Authorization letter as Ex.OP1.3/1, copy of certificate of project registration issued by RERA as Ex.OP1.3/2, copy of certificate of project registration issued by RERA as Ex.OP1.3/3, copy of NOC issued by forest department as Ex.OP1.3/4, copy of NOC issued by NHAI as Ex.OP1.3/5, copy of NOC by Punjab pollution control board as Ex.OP1.3/6, copy of renewal of colony licence issued by PUDA as Ex.OP1.3/7, copy of NOC issued by PSPCL as Ex.OP1.3/8, copy of certificate of change of Name as Ex.OP1.3/9 issued by Registrar of companies, photographs are Ex.OP1.3/10 to OP1.3/14, affidavit of Rupinder Singh as Ex.OP1.3/15 and closed the evidence.
12. The opposite party No. 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh Cheema as Ex.OP-4/1, Copy of Form APR V as Ex.OP-4/2 and closed the evidence.
13. The opposite party No. 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Sharma Ex.O.P5/1, copy of IO Ex.O.P5/2, copy of Estimate Ex.O.P5/3, copy of Memo No. 1262 dated 29.11.2022 Ex.O.P5/4, copy of SCO Ex.O.P5/5 and closed the evidence.
14. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by opposite parties No. 1, 3 and 4.
15. Ld. Counsel for the complainants argued that the complainants were allotted Plot No. 120 measuring 150 sq.yds @ Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yads i.e. totaling Rs. 9,00,000/- in the Dynamic Continental Pvt. Ltd., at Dhanaula Road, Barnala on dated 21.6.2010 and the opposite parties accepted the amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 16.6.2010, Rs. 1,70,000/- on dated 21.6.2010, Rs. 1,25,000/- on dated 11.1.2011, Rs. 1,45,000/- on dated 13.1.2011 from the allottee Mr. Parkash Chand of said plot, now the name of said colony has been changed on 29.12.2010 as Curo India Pvt. Ltd. It is further argued that the said plot was transferred to the names of complainants vide transfer letter dated 10.8.2011, as such the complainants stepped into the shoe of Parkash Chand original allottee of the said plot. It is further argued that the complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- vide receipt dated 10.8.2011 and Rs. 60,000/- in cash was deposited with the opposite parties and on 8.9.2011 the sale deed was executed by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants on collector rates and supplied copy of broacher promising basic amenities and other ultra modern amenities and facilities to enhance style and swiftication, luxurious villas, club with swimming pool, shopping centre, nursery school for kids, well designed lush green parks. It is further argued that a wide range indeed catering to individual cum family needs of the future residents and all modern amenities like 24 x 7 availability of water, power backup and underground power cable will be provided. It is further argued that on trusting the words of the opposite parties, the complainants purchased the said plot in the said colony and the opposite parties gave the complainants one brochure mentioning the best qualities/features of the colony and also told the complainant that the plot buyers will enjoy the most luxurious and natural living in the said colony and the colony will be developed within one year. It is further argued that at the time of executing the sale deed dated 8.9.2011 only symbolic possession was given to the complainants. It is further argued that till date they have not obtained the certificate from PUDA that they have completed the basic amenities as promised by them and no terms and conditions and payment plan was supplied to the complainants at the time of execution of sale deed. It is further argued that the complainants approached the opposite parties many a times for the purpose of demarcation and possession of plot alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by the opposite parties but all in vain. It is further argued that the complainant served a registered legal notice dated 25.3.2022 through counsel but the opposite parties did not give satisfactory reply. It is further argued that the complainants visited the site of the said colony many times to watch what is the progress at the site but there was only one watchman at the site and very sad to see that no development work was done and nothing seems to be done soon and no one has constructed house in the said colony. Ld. Counsel for the complainants further argued that the complainants approached the opposite parties to get the possession of said plot alongwith basic amenities as promised by them or for the refund of deposited amount but the opposite parties avoided the complainant on pretext or the other and some days ago flatly refused to refund the amount.
16. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 argued that the complainant does not qualify to fall within the definition of Consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant booked the said plot for the purpose of resale i.e. for commercial purpose and profits. It is further argued that the cause of action is alleged to have lastly arisen on 8.9.2011, whereas the permissible limitation period is two years and no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainants. It is further argued that in the case in hand no allotment letter was issued to the complainant and the status of the transaction between the parties was only that of booking of plot against future payments and the allotment letter was to be issued only after the payment of balance consideration of said plot. It is further argued that the complainants made up their mind to purchase the plot on the promise and assurance of earlier proposed allottee Mr. Parkash Chand and the contract was between the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand and at the time of execution of sale deed on 08.09.2011 no brochure was supplied to the complainants. It is further argued that relying upon the affidavits of the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand the sale deed was got executed in favour of the complainants. It is further argued that no big hoardings/advertisement were put up in Barnala displaying the alleged facilities and neither complainants trusted the words of the opposite parties, rather the complainants trusted the words of Mr. Parkash Chand. It is further argued that the complainants are well settled in Panchkula having their work and businesses at Panchkula and their kids are studying in Panchkula and their chances of shifting to Barnala and no reason has been assigned in the complaint as to why the complainants intended to shift to Barnala. It is further argued that the complainants have concocted a false story which is further proved from the fact that since 08.09.2011 there is no attempt on their part to start construction on their plot and after the execution of sale deed the possession was given to the complainants. It is further argued that Dynamic Homes is PUDA approved colony and all the street lights and external electrification work has been completed and Genset Backup is already installed at the site and the sewage lines as per NBC norms have already been laid and tested and drinking as well as irrigation water lines have also been laid and tested as per NBC norms.
17. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 argued that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainants have not come with clean hands. It is further argued that Vyeman Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. having its headquarters at New Delhi had applied for obtaining license to develop colony under the name and style of Dynamic Homes, Ph-II, village Dhanala Khurd, District Barnala having area of 9.94 acres (Drg. No. Jobs No DH-2/ dated 26.08.2010) and after competition of all the formalities the above mentioned license was issued which was valid from 28.10.2010 to 27.10.2013 and its renewed upto 31.12.2022. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 4 has no concern whatsoever with the amount deposited by the complainants with the office of opposite party No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and office of opposite party No. 4 was only liable to issue license to the complainants for development of the colony, as such there is no other liability of the office of opposite party No. 4.
18. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 5 argued that the present complaint is sheer misuse of process of law because the complainants with pre-malafide intention to collect evidence and made the opposite party No. 5 as party to the complaint and managed to serve a notice upon the opposite party No. 5 without any cause of action or locus-standi. It is further argued that neither the opposite party No. 5 is party to any contract nor any contract between the complainant and opposite party No. 5 has taken place at any point of time and the opposite party No. 5 is not service provider to the complainant in any manner.
19. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by the parties. It is the specific case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 that in the case in hand no allotment letter was issued to the complainant and the status of the transaction between the parties was only that of booking of plot against future payments and the allotment letter was to be issued only after the payment of balance consideration of said plot. It is further the case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 that the complainants made up their mind to purchase the plot on the promise and assurance of earlier proposed allottee Mr. Parkash Chand and the contract was between the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand and at the time of execution of sale deed on 08.09.2011 no brochure was supplied to the complainants and relying upon the affidavits of the complainants and Mr. Parkash Chand the sale deed was got executed in favour of the complainants. It is further the case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 that the complainants have concocted a false story which is further proved from the fact that since 08.09.2011 there is no attempt on their part to start construction on their plot and after the execution of sale deed the possession was given to the complainants. It is further the case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 that Dynamic Homes (now Curo India Pvt. Ltd.) is PUDA approved colony and all the street lights and external electrification work has been completed and the electrical connection along with Genset Backup is already installed at the site and the sewerage lines as per NBC norms have already been laid and tested and drinking as well as irrigation water lines have also been laid and tested as per NBC norms and all parks have been completed and being maintained.
20. In order to prove their case the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 placed on record copy of Certificate of project registration issued by RERA i.e. Ex.O.P1.3/2 & Ex.O.P1.3/3 which shows that Dynamic Homes Phase 1 developed in a total area of 40442.7900 Sq. Mts. at Village Dhanuala Khurd, Barnala Punjab-148107 and the same was registered vide registration number PBRERA-BNL06-PR0393. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 further produced copy of Renewal of Colony License Under PAPRA,1995 issued by Patiala Urban Planning & Development Authority, Patiala i.e. Ex.O.P1.3/7 which shows that the Competent Authority, Cum-Chief Administrator, PDA, Patiala renewed the licence of opposite parties from 24.10.2021 to 31.12.2022 vide Memo No. PDA/Admin-S-2/Pta/2022/7340 dated 18.7.2022. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 to prove their case have also placed on record copy of NOC issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vide Memo No. 1262 dated 29.11.2022 Ex.O.P1.3/8. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 also produced copy of NOC from Forest Department, NOC from National Highway Authority of India and NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board i.e. Ex.O.P1.3/4 to Ex.O.P1.3/6. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 further placed on record copies of Photographs of the above said colony i.e. Ex.O.P1.3/10 to Ex.O.P1.3/14 which shows that work of street lights, external electrification, sewerage lines as well as irrigation water lines, parks, street road and drinking water work have been completed/done in the said colony. On the other hand, the allegation of the complainants is that on 25.3.2022 the complainants approached the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to get the actual possession with demarcation alongwith basic amenities and other modern facilities as promised by the opposite parties and the complainants visited the site of the said colony many times to watch what is the progress at the site but there was no development work was done and nothing seems to be done soon and no one has constructed house in the said colony and the complainants approached the opposite parties many times for the refund of deposited money but the opposite parties avoided the complainant on pretext or the other and some days ago flatly refused to refund the amount. The complainants have produced the copies of receipts i.e. Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 and as per the receipt Ex.C-9 the complainants had paid last payment on 12.08.2011 of Rs. 3,90,000/- in the year 2011. The complainants have failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that they communicated with the opposite parties as mentioned in the complaint. Further, the complainants have produced copy of acceptance letter Ex.C-3 which was issued by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to Sh. Parkash Chand (original allottee) vide which it is mentioned that “we accept your offer for allotment of plot No. 120 measuring 150 Sq. Yds”.
21. The complainants in the present complaint have sought relief that directions may issued to the opposite parties to give possession of the plot No. 120 having an area of 150 sq. yds. alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by them or refund the amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of payments till realization. Further, the opposite party No. 4 may be directed to submit the NOC issued to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 that they have completed all the development works after getting all NOC’s of departments and the opposite party No. 5 may be directed to submit the record pertaining to deposit of own transformer fee for installing the transformer in the colony and load passed for the colony. On the other hand, in order to rebut the allegation of the complainants the opposite parties have relied upon the copy of sale deed i.e. Ex.C-10 which was produced by the complainants in their evidence in which it is mentioned that the seller (opposite parties No. 1 to 3) has sold the above said plot in question (i.e. Rs. 3800/- Sq. Yds) to the purchaser (complainants) for an amount of Rs. 5,70,000/- and this fact is also admitted by the complainants in their complaint. It is clearly mentioned in sale deed Ex.C-10 that the possession of plot has been taken by the complainants. Moreover, the complainants in their complaint in Para No. 1 have alleged that on 8.9.2011 the sale deed was executed by the opposite parties in favour of the complainants on collector rates. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 4 in order to rebut the allegation of the complainants has produced copy of Form APR V Ex.O.P-4/2 which shows that the opposite party No. 4 has issued Licence to develop colony to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 vide Licence No. LDC 217/2010. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 5 in support of its case has also produced copy of IO as Ex.O.P5/2, copy of Estimate as Ex.O.P5/3, copy of Memo No. 1262 dated 29.11.2022 as Ex.O.P5/4 and copy of SCO as Ex.O.P5/5 and from the above said documents it established that the opposite party No. 5 has issued NOC to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to develop the above said colony/project.
22. So, from the above said discussion, it established that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced various documents vide which they have proved their case successfully that all basic amenities and facilities are available at the said colony and the required NOC’s were issued by the opposite parties No. 4 & 5 to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The opposite parties also proved that they have already delivered the possession of the plot in question. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence.
23. In view of the above discussion, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same is dismissed without costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
9th Day of December, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
