Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/687/2016

Narotam Madan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Khunger

04 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/687/2016
Date of Institution	:	24/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2017

 

Narotam Madan son of Shri Om Parkash, Krishna Auto Agency, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Ltd., SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Emerging Valley (P) Ltd., SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Counsel for complainant,
	:	Sh. Jasjit Singh Rattu, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the OPs issued various advertisements and allured the consumers to buy flats in their project “Emerging Valley”. The complainant, with an intention to have a flat near Chandigarh filled up the form and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- being earnest money on 27.3.2012.  The draw of lots was held by the OPs on 30.3.2012 and the complainant was allotted a 1 BHK flat. A payment schedule was given as per which the total sale consideration for the flat was Rs.18,90,000/-. As directed by the OPs, the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.4,72,500/- through cheques of different dates.  At the time of booking and holding draw the OPs apprised that the colony had been duly approved. When the complainant visited the office of the OPs in the year 2014, it was informed that due to airport in the vicinity the OPs have not been granted the permission to raise the flats beyond a permissible limit. Accordingly, the complainant sought refund, but the OPs refused saying that they have applied again for grant of permission to raise the construction of 1BHK flats. Subsequently, the complainant, visited the office of the OPs in the first week of February, 2016 and he was informed that they have not received the sanction/permission and told him that he can be allotted 2 BHK flat on payment of additional amount.  Since the complainant had limited resources, he was not in a positon to pay more amount for purchase of a 2 BHK flat and sought refund, but, the OPs refused the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs did not file their written reply and evidence despite grant of six adjournments. Hence, the defence of the OPs was struck off vide order dated 20.6.2017.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5.         As per the case of the complainant and Annexure C-3, placed on record, the complainant made payment of Rs.4,72,500/- to the OPs upto May 2012 and the remaining payment, out of total sale consideration of Rs.18,90,000/-, was to be paid in next five six monthly installments. The sole grouse of the complainant is that the OPs did not have the permission to raise the flats and even necessary approvals from various competent authorities were also not with them and despite this major deficiency, they received a huge amount from the complainant.  Even after a gap of 2 years in the year 2014, when the complainant visited the office of the OPs, he was apprised that due to airport in the vicinity, the OPs have not been granted permission to raise the flats beyond a permissible limit, accordingly they are not constructing 1 BHK flat for which the complainant made the booking and the amount was deposited with the OPs. It has been contended that in the year 2016, the OPs informed the complainant that he can be allotted a 2 BHK flat after payment of the additional amount, but, due to his limited resources he was not in a position to pay more amount to purchase the 2 BHK flat and, therefore, sought refund.
6.         Perusal of the file reveals that the OPs were granted a number of dates viz. 27.10.2016, 30.11.2016, 17.1.2017, 22.2.2017, 31.3.2017, 5.5.2017 and 20.6.2017 for filing their reply and evidence, but, they failed to do so. Ultimately vide order dated 20.6.2017 of this Forum, the defence of the OPs was struck off. Hence, it is clear that the OPs have nothing to say in their defence.  We are of the opinion that it was the duty of the OPs to purchase the land before entering into an agreement and then only receive the money from the complainant/consumer.
7.         As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. In this regard, reliance can be had on the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land.”

8.         Evidently, the OPs remained deficient in services and adopted unfair trade practice, as such, the complainant is entitled to refund of money paid by him alongwith interest.  The complainant has been harassed a lot by the OPs in accepting the money from him, but, taking no steps to complete the project due to which the future hopes of the complainant to own a 1 BHK flat have come to an end. Hence, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him because of the act and conduct of the OPs.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.  The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.4,72,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date(s) of deposit till realisation;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical pain and inconvenience caused;

(iii)   To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/08/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member