STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

Jagjit Singh S/o Sh.Bhura singh, R/o H.no.322, Village Rai Ke Kala, Bathinda, Punjab

             …..Appellant

                                                  Versus

    1.  M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., having its site office at Emerging Heights, Sector 115, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Directors Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Sh.Sushil Kumar and Additional Director Sh.Kamaljit Singh.

2.    Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Director of M/s Emerging India Housing   Corporation (P) Ltd., Office at Emerging Heights, Sector 115, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

3.   Sh.Sushil Kumar, Director of M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., having its site office at Emerging Heights, Sector 115, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

4.    Sh.Kamaljit Singh, Additional Director of M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., having its site office at Emerging Heights, Sector 115, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

                                                                         ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 12.09.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.606/2022.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Savinder Singh Gill,Advocate for the  appellant.

                         Respondents No.1 to 3 ex parte.

                         Respondent No.4 given up by the appellant.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.09.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint. 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that he applied for a residential flat by making  payment of Rs.5.00 Lakhs on 31.05.2016 and accordingly he was allotted residential Flat No.D-402 by the Opposite Parties/Respondents  in their project under the name & style of ‘Emerging Heights-III, Sector 115, SAS Nagar Mohali and the total cost of said flat was Rs.45,72,000/-.  It is stated that the OPs failed to deliver the possession of said flat within the promised period of two years or upto three years in case of reasonable extension since the year 2016 despite receipt of entire amount.  It was further  stated that the complainant kept on visiting the OPs to know the status of the development of the project but  the OPs expressed their inability to deliver the possession of the said flat. Subsequently the OPs started pressurizing the complainant for taking the possession of some other flat as the flat booked by the complainant was incomplete  and ultimately under the threat of cancelling the flat,   handed over the possession of incomplete apartment/Flat No.E-402 to the complainant  by way of conveyance deed dated 13.6.2018 that too without obtaining the completion & occupation certificate.  It was further stated   that the OPs did not pay any compensation to the complainant for the period of delay in handing over the possession of the flat. Even the   OPs did not have the requisite occupation and completion certificate at the time of handing over possession to the complainant for the said project nor there were basic facilities like water, electricity, Sewerage Treatment Plant etc. at the project site.  It was further alleged that at the time when OPs started collecting money, the project of the OPs was not even approved. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking  refund of amount deposited alongwith interest or to pay compensation for the delayed period alongwith allied reliefs.

 3.                The Opposite Parties did not appear before the Ld. Lower Commission despite service and suffered ex parte proceedings. However, Opposite Party No.4 later on moved an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings which was disallowed.

 4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, Ld. Lower Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his complaint by way of placing on record any documentary evidence.

5.                Aggrieved against the   aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant  for setting aside the impugned order by granting relief as claimed in the complaint.   

6.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice of the appeal, respondents No.1 to 3 did not enter appearance despite service and suffered ex parte proceedings. However, respondent No.4 was given up by the appellant.

7.          We have heard Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 8.                  It is own case of the appellant that the respondents did not issue any concrete allotment letter and no Buyer’s Agreement was ever got executed.  It is also an admitted fact that the  apartment in question was booked on 31.05.2016 by making a payment of Rs.5.00 Lakhs and conveyance deed was executed on 13.06.2018. The appellant in the complaint sought refund of the amount of Rs.44,12,800/- alongwith interest or in the alternative compensation in the form of interest on the deposited amount of Rs.44,12,800/- for the delayed period. However, during the proceedings before the Ld. Lower Commission, the complainant restricted his prayer only for compensation and interest for the delay in handing over the possession as the possession of the apartment was taken over and withdrew his prayer qua refund of the deposited amount.  Alongwith the complaint, the appellant attached Annexure C-1- receipts showing payment of Rs.5.00 Lakhs on 31.5.2016, 4.00 Lakhs on 29.06.2016 and 4.00 Lakhs 19.07.2016, Annexure C-2 is the demand letter-cum-payment confirmation asking the appellant to clear the dues in two installments of Rs.9.00 Lakhs each. Annexure C-2 is copy of the  Conveyance deed executed between the parties on 13.06.2018, Annexure C-3 is the letter of confirmation dated 12.06.20218 and annexure C-4 is the list of two Directors of the company. 

 9.               While dismissing the complaint, the Ld. District Commission observed as under;

“ From the perusal of the record, it is observed that on 13.06.2018 a Conveyance Deed is executed in favour of the complainant.  This ‘Conveyance Deed’ is presumed to be executed by the parties to it by free will and consent in the presence of the Registrar.  The allegation of the complainant that OPs using their dominant position handed over illegal possession to the complainant by way of Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant without obtaining the Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate are to be challenged before Civil Court or appropriate authority if the complainant wish to challenge the ‘conveyance deed’ on account of dominant position of OPs or under pressure or coercion.  Moreover, in the ‘Conveyance Deed’, it is clearly mentioned that possession is handed over to the purchaser (complainant) on the spot. The complainant was himself present and signed the conveyance deed.

        The complainant failed to prove on file any agreement of terms & conditions between the parties.  In the absence of terms & conditions of agreement between the parties, it cannot be determined that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

        In nutshell, the complainant failed to prove his complaint by way of placing on record any documentary evidence to the effect that OPs are deficient in service in any manner.   There is no iota of evidence on record filed by the complainant to prove his complaint against OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.”  

10.             The appellant had booked the apartment on 31.05.2016 and the conveyance deed was executed on 13.06.2018 i.e after about two years of the date of booking of the apartment. It is clearly mentioned in the conveyance deed that the possession of the apartment in question has been given to the allottee against the amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs.  There is no document on the record to show that the possession was to be delivered within two years and that any agreement was executed. Without there being any document, it cannot be said that there was any delay in handing over the possession.

11.             We find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

12.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

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

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