Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/440/2020

Sandeep Kumar Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s G.K Residency Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Khullar

15 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	440 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	03.07.2024
Date   of   Decision	:	15.07.2024

 

 

 

 

1] Sandeep Kumar Verma s/o Sh.Ram Murti Verma,

2]  Simranjeet Kaur w/o Sh.Sandeep Kumar Verma,

R/o #109, Green City, Neelpur, Phase-1, Rajpura, Punjab 140401

.... Complainants

VERSUS

1]  M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited, having its registered office at SCO 146-147-148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh 160043

    Also At:-

        Village Santemajra, Sector 115, Kharar.

2]  Sahil Bansal s/o Sh.Ram Atar Bansal, R/o H.No.261, Sector 17, Panchkula, Haryana 134109, Additional Director and Authorised signatory of M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited.

3]  Amandeep Singla, Director & Authorized Signatory of M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited having its registered office at SCO 146-147-148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh 160043

4]  Gurminder Kaur, Director & Authorized Signatory of M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited having its registered office at SCO 146-147-148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh 160043

5]  Onkar Nath Puri, Additional Director & Authorized Signatory of M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited having its registered office at SCO 146-147-148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh 160043

6]  Meenakshi Puri, Additional Director & Authorized Signatory of M/s G.K. Residency Private Limited having its registered office at SCO 146-147-148, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh 160043

.....Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:      MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,  PRESIDENT

                            MR.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

 

Present:-       Sh.Umang Goyal, Counsel for the complainant     Sh.Tushar Arora, Counsel for OPs

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainants have filed the present complaint pleading that they booked a residential flat with OPs bearing Unit No.261, 2^nd floor, 2BHK+Store measuring Super Built Up Area of 1085 sq. ft., Tower COD-115 in their project namely “City of Dreams’, Sector 115, Kharar on 24.4.2019 by paying booking amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  Thereafter, Apartment Buyer’s Agreement of Sale was executed between the complainants and OPs on 13.5.2019 (Ann.C-3) whereby the complainants had opted for a construction linked payment plan.  It is stated that against the total cost of the flat in question i.e. Rs.29,69,419/-, the complainants had paid Rs.27,34,576/- to the OPs by 18.1.2020 against receipts Ann.C-4 to C-7 including booking amount of Rs.10,000/-.   It is also stated that as per Agreement, the possession would have been handed over by 31.3.2020 but the OPs failed to deliver it even till date. It is submitted that the OPs vide letter dated 15.7.2020 purportedly offered the possession of the unit but failed to deliver the actual possession of the unit in question.  It is also submitted that the complainants demanded Occupancy Certificate & Completion Certificate issued by the competent authorities in favour of the OPs in respect of the Unit in question but the OPs failed to produce the same nor delivered the possession of the Unit in question.  Further, the complainants on their visit to the site on 23.7.2020 found no development at the site, no provision of electricity connection, water connection, Street Lights etc. and when the matter was brought to the notice of OPs, they failed to give any positive response.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

 

2]       After service of notice, OPs appeared before this Commission through counsel, filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case about booking of flat, execution of agreement as well as receipt of amount alleged by the complainants as a matter of record, stated that the payments made by the complainants remained to be delayed/short at may junctures. It is denied that the incomplete possession of the unit was offered after a delay of 7 months. It is submitted that the complainants have failed to release the payment as and when it fell due.  It is also submitted that the complainants are defaulter. It is denied that the OPs are not delivering timely possession. Denying other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      The complainants filed replication controverting the stand of the OPs made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.

6]       From the submissions of the parties and the documentary evidence especially the Agreement For Sale dated 13.05.2019 placed on record as Annexure C-3, it is observed that OPs had agreed to sell the subject flat bearing Apartment No.261 measuring 736 st. ft. carpet area Type 2BHK, 2^nd floor in Tower 9 to the complainants for total sale consideration of Rs.29,69,419/-. It is also observed from the Receipts (Ann.C-2, C-4 to C-7) that out of the total sale consideration, OPs had received a sum of Rs.27,34,576/- qua the flat in question from the complainants.  It is relevant to mention here that OPs have not only failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question to the complainants despite receipt of the substantial amount but also failed to refund the deposited amount to the complainants which itself amounts to deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  It is also opined that the OPs have failed to place on record the Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate issued by the competent authorities in respect of the project in question in which the complainants were allotted the flat, which proves that the subject project is still incomplete. 

7]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018  has held as under:-

    “15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there  was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/complainants is entitled to?”

         Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed as under:-

    “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

         The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:- 

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

 

8]       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and OPs who failed to deliver the possession of the subject flat within the a reasonable period to the complainants has no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainants. Thus, the complainants cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the unit allotted to them and the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount paid along with interest.

 

9]       In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed against the OPs with directions to refund to the complainants the deposited amount of Rs.27,34,576/- along with interest @10% per annum from the respective dates of its deposit, as mentioned in the Receipts (Ann.C-2, C-4 to C-7) till the date of its actual payment to the complainants.

 

        The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

10]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.07.2024                                                                    

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER