Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/162

Babita Sehgal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sham Lal Ghai

09 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  162 dated 24.03.2021.                                       Date of decision: 09.10.2024. 

 

Mrs. Babita Sehgal aged 52 years wife of Sh. Amarjit Sehgal son of Sh. Avtar Singh, r/o. H. No.130, Street No.3, Jasdev Singh Nagar, Village Gill, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. Through its M.D./Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu; Sh. H.S. Behal
2. Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Through its M.D/Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu; Sh. H.S. Behal, SCO 28-29-30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.
3. M/s. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited, through its M.D/Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu; Sh. H.S. Behal

SCO 46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009.

4. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director M/s. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., M.D. Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., M.D. M/s. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited.              
5. Sh. H.S. Behal, Director M/s. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., Director Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Director M/s. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited.    

Sh. H.S. Behal son of Sh. Tirlok Singh, resident of A-1, Royal Regency, Omaxe Residential, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

6. Sh. Gurtek Singh s/o. Balwant Singh, resident of Tara Estate, Dhuri, District Sangrur.                                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s 35 read with section 34 and 36 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that OP6 Gurtek Singh is the agent of OP1 to OP5 which deals in business of sale purchaser, promoters, building of landed property, build up properties. The complainant and her husband Sh. Amarjit Sehgal approached OP6 who conveyed that OP1 to Op5 are in process of developing a valley within the area of Mohali and as per representation of their directors, OP6 took the complainant and her husband to their office at Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. The OPs Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, H.S. Behal talked for entering into deal for purchase of plot with the complainant and her husband. As per information supplied by the OPs, they have launched their projects at different intervals and their real estate business performed and worked under the following projects:-

                   i. Emerging India

                   ii. Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited

                   iii. Emerging Channel Partner (ECP)

                   iv. Emerging Valley

                   v. Emerging World

                   vi. Emerging Heights-IV

Even they launched sister concern Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. printed material in the shape of booklet/pamphlet. According to the complainant, Directors/Managing Directors of all the companies are same. The complainant further stated that the OPs conveyed that they have obtained required information from competent authority for the purpose of development of above said valley and also allured the complainant to invest in their project. As such, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.7,90,500/- vide different transactions with the OPs upon which the OPs issued a provisional allotment letter dated 29.10.2012 for plot No.189 of area 200 sq. yards. The complainant along with Jagdeep Singh jointly applied for allotment of the plot but as Jagdeep Singh was unable to enter into further dealing due to personal reasons and as such, as per consent of the OPs, the amount paid by Jagdeep Singh was adjusted in account of allotment of the complainant. The complainant made the payment of said amount to Jagdeep Singh vide endorsement letter dated 18.03.2017.

                   The complainant further stated that the OPs were to allot the plot in Emerging Valley Project but they could not complete the said project and thereafter, vide letter dated 14.09.2018 a residential plot of 205 sq. Yards in Emerging Valley was allotted to the complainant. Finally a plot No.53 was allotted as part and parcel of Emerging Valley with area of 205 sq. yards being a residential one against total payment received to the tune of Rs.27,67,850/-. Further it was conveyed to the complainant that the possession shall be handed over at the earlier after complying with other formalities for completion of said Emerging Valley and as such, the complainant had paid all the amount to the OPs. On 14.09.2018, the complainant visited the OPs with request to hand over possession of plot in question and to receive the ancillary charges from her but the OPs failed to handover the possession of the plot and to execute sale deed. On 13.11.2010, the complainant served a legal notice through her counsel but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to allot the plot No.53 measuring 205 sq. yards in Emerging Valley by providing all basic amenities and facilities and to execute sale deed in favour of the complainant after receiving ancillary charges desired for the purpose of registration of sale deed. The complainant also prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to refund the entire received amount along with interest  as well as compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service and as such, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.07.2021 and 14.07.2023 respectively.

3.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CB of Sh. Amarjit Sehgal. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C38 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                From the allegations made in the complaint and the exparte evidence led in support thereof, which has gone unrebutted on the file, it has been established that on 04.11.2011, the complainant applied for a residential plot measuring 205 sq.  yards. in the project of the OPs namely Emerging Valley located at Emerging Valley, Landran-Baur Road, Mohali, Punjab. Total value of the plot in question was 26,35,000/-. A provisional allotment letter dated 29.10.2012 Ex. C3, Ex. C4, Ex. C5 was issued in favour of the complainant. The OPs issued a Final allotment letter dated 14.09.2018 Ex. C8 in the name of the complainant vide which plot No.53 measuring 205 sq. yards in the said project was allotted in name of the complainant. As per Annexure I : Payment Schedule Ex. C13, the detail of the payment plan was mentioned as below:-                

Sr. No.	Details	Amount
1.	Net Sale Price	26,35,000/-
2.	EDC	3,37,000/-
3.	Total received	27,67,850/-
4.	Pending	2,04,150/-

As per the allotment letter Ex. C5, “ the possession of the flat/village/plot was to delivered was expected to be handed over on the due date of possession as mentioned in the Sale Brochure or on the date of payment of the entire cost of the Flat/Village/Plot and Facility Charges, Registration Charges and any other charges as may be intimated by the Company, whichever is later.”  However, the OPs failed to hand over the possession of the plot in question in favour of the complainant despite receipt of amount of Rs.27,67,850/- as has been admitted by them vide Payment Schedule Ex. C13.  According to the complainant, she along with her husband requested the Ops to hand over the possession of the plot after completing all the development work by providing basic amenities and facilities as well as after taking all the ancillary charges meant for registration and execution of sale deed of the plot but the OPs failed to do the need full. Even the OPs have not chosen to contest this case and have been proceeded against exparte. In this regard, reference can be made to 2021(3) CLT 309 in Gaurav Prehar Vs Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. And others in which the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has made the following observation:-

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sections 2(42), 47 & 49(2) -Housing constructions – Pleadings - Ex-parte - Adverse inference –Held - The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ-The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy-The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted-OP was proceeded against exparte-Thus, all the averments made in the compliant are deemed to have been admitted by it and the evidence led by the complainant stands unrebutted; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against OP-complaint partly allowed”

The complainant has consistently pleaded that the OPs had failed to hand over the possession of the plot even till the date of filing the present complaint. As such, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

6.                In this regard, reference can be made to Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & another (2021) 3 SCC 241, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “allottees who have not been given possession, cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, nor they can be bound to take possession in other phase of the project. Such allottees are entitled to refund of entire amount deposited by them.” Further reference can be made to Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and others Vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & others (2020) 16 SCC 512, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that “failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within the contractually stipulated period, amount to deficiency.” Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “in case of gross delay in handing over possession by builder beyond contractually stipulated period, flat purchaser is entitled to just and reasonable compensation for such delay and such compensation not constrained by terms of rate which is prescribed in an unfair bargain.

                   As such, after appreciating the documents on record, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a Consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress injustice done to the complainant. The amount of compensation can be determined by taking into facts and circumstances of each case and also mitigating circumstances that may arise in favour of the OPs as well. Reference can be made to 2020(3) Apex Court Judgments 27 (S.C.) in DLF Home Developers ltd. (Earlier known as DLF Universal Ltd.) & another Vs Capital Green Flat Buyers Association Etc. Further reference can be made to Vidya and others Vs M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.8985 of 2022 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 557) whereby the entire deposited amount was ordered to be refunded to the complainants along with interest @12% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund.

                   Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to refund the amount Rs.27,67,850/- (the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties)  along with interest @12% per annum from respective date of deposits till its actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Further the OPs are burdened with composite costs of Rs.50,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that OPs shall jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs.27,67,850/- (the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties)  along with interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs shall jointly and severally further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as composite costs to the complainant.  Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.