Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/834/2017

Amaninder Preet - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Nehra, Adv.

28 Jun 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	834 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Sh.Amaninder Preet, Son of Krishan Lal Garg, Resident of Flat No.697, Ground Floor, Silver Birch, Omaxe, Chandigarh Extn. Mullanpur, Mohali, Punjab.
Sh.Krishan Lal Garg, Son of Late Sh.Puran Chand, Resident of Flat No.697, Ground Floor, Silver Brich, Omaxe, Chandigarh Extn. Mullanpur, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Sarabjeet Kaur, Director, Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh. (deleted vide order dated 15.03.2018).

.... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3 alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

Opposite party no.4 deleted vide order dated 15.03.2018.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in Consumer Complaint bearing No.659 of 2017 titled as Veena Ghai and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited and ors., this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 659 of 2017 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 659 of 2017, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.))

PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	659 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Veena Ghai, W/o Sh.M.L. Ghai D/o Sh.Rajinder Singh Marya, R/o- House No.58E, Street No.4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147001.
Lokesh Ghai S/o Sh.M.L. Ghai, R/o- House No.58E, Street No.4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147001.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	36 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	22.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Puneet Jain S/o Ravi Kiran Jain R/o 212/1, Rose Park, Gulab Devi Hospital Road, Jalandhar-144001.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director/Director/Secretary/Authorized Signatory.
Tarinder Singh, Director of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.
NarinderBir Singh, Director of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.
Sarabjeet Kaur, Director of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017 (deleted vide order dated 07.03.2018).

....Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3 alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

Opposite party no.4 deleted vide order dated 07.03.2018.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	857 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	20.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Varinder Pal Singh Gill son of Sh.Amar Singh Gill.
Dr.Prabhjot Kaur Gill wife of Sh.Varinder Pal Singh.

Residents of Flat No.865, Excel Society, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

....Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	834 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Sh.Amaninder Preet, Son of Krishan Lal Garg, Resident of Flat No.697, Ground Floor, Silver Birch, Omaxe, Chandigarh Extn. Mullanpur, Mohali, Punjab.
Sh.Krishan Lal Garg, Son of Late Sh.Puran Chand, Resident of Flat No.697, Ground Floor, Silver Brich, Omaxe, Chandigarh Extn. Mullanpur, Mohali, Punjab.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Sarabjeet Kaur, Director, Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh. (deleted vide order dated 15.03.2018).

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 to 3 alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

Opposite party no.4 deleted vide order dated 15.03.2018.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	776 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Sh.Tarsem Lal Jindal, s/o Late Sh.Banarasi Dass, resident of 49-A, Street No.1, Jujhar Nagar, Patiala, Punjab.
Sh.Retaish Jindal, s/o Sh.Tarsem Lal Jindal, resident of Flat No.604, GH3, Himalaya Employees Co-op GHS Ltd., Sector 23, Panchkula, Haryana.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	660 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Lokesh Ghai S/o Sh.M.L. Ghai, R/o- House No.58E, Street No.4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147001.
Veena Ghai, W/o Sh.M.L. Ghai S/o Sh.Rajinder Singh Marya, R/o- House No.58E, Street No.4, Partap Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147001.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Karan Nehra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

=====================================================

Complaint case No.	:	737 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	13.10.2017
Date of Decision	:	28.06.2018

Kapil Dua S/o Dharam Pal Dua.

Corresponding Address:-House No.237, Ram Nagar, Ward No.31, Ambala City, Haryana.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, India, through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

======================================================

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid seven consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 31.05.2018. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by the contesting parties, that all the seven complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.659 of 2017 titled as Veena Ghai and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited and ors. The complainants are mother and son respectively. It is their case that on looking glossy advertisements issued by opposite party no.1, through opposite parties no.2 and 3, regarding their project known as, ‘Palm Springs’ situated at Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab, they booked a plot therein, measuring 250 square yards, on 03.10.2011. The plot was purchased for their personal use to settle near to Chandigarh. It was further specifically stated by the complainants that they don’t own any other property in the tricity region of Chandigarh.

Basic sale price of the plot, in question, was fixed at Rs.43,75,000/-. When plot was booked on 03.10.2011, 30% of the amount i.e. Rs.13,12,500/- was paid by the complainants, to the opposite parties. To say so, reference has been made to Annexure C-1. It is specific assertion made by the complainants that when the plot in question was booked and above payments were made, they were assured that possession thereof (plot) in a developed project will be handed over within a period of two years. Vide letter dated 03.03.2014 Annexure C-2, they were intimated that project was at its final stage of development and it will become possessionable in a short span of time. Against the demand raised, further amount of Rs.5,25,000/- was paid by the complainants on 01.05.2014, receipt Annexure C-3 whereof was issued on 21.07.2014. Against letter dated 27.07.2015 Annexure C-4, further demand of Rs.6,56,250/- towards basic sale price and an amount of Rs.5 lacs towards EDC and IDC i.e. totaling Rs.11,56,250/-, was made by the opposite parties. It was further case of the complainants that qua Rs.6,56,250/- which was paid in cash, no receipt was issued by the opposite parties. This act of the opposite parties would amount to unfair trade practice. Vide letter dated 18.08.2015 Annexure C-6, further amount was demanded by the opposite parties, without any justification and they also allotted plot bearing no.1152, measuring 250 square yards, in favour of the complainants. It was further stated that by that time, the complainants had already paid an amount equal to 65% of the total amount due. Plot buyer’s agreement was offered for signatures only on 03.03.2016. The complainants sought an appointment with the Officers of the opposite parties, however, it was not scheduled. Vide letter dated 16.05.2016 Annexure C-9, again agreement was put for signatures, subject to making further deposit, which was not due at all. Despite depositing an amount of Rs.28,43,750/- plus 50% of the development charges i.e. Rs.5 lacs i.e. total amounting to Rs.33,43,750/- there was no development at the project site. It is further stated that the opposite parties continued to raise illegal demands without any justification, which act also amounts to unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the project was sold contrary to the provisions of (PAPRA). No approvals/permissions, as mandatory, before launching and selling the project were available with the opposite parties. Possession of the plot was to be delivered within a period of two years from the date of booking. However, till filing of this complaint, it was not offered. Compelled under above circumstances and also, when there was no hope to get possession of plot in the developed project, in near future, the complainants filed this complaint seeking refund of amount paid, alongwith interest, compensation etc.

Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite parties, wherein, numerous objections were taken by them, like that expression of interest shown by the complainants was for speculative purposes. The plot, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act, 1986). It was pleaded that complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature. Only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. It was stated that the project of the opposite parties have been registered under the . Jurisdiction of this Commission was further challenged, by stating that RERA being a special statute took precedence over the Act, 1986.
On merits, it was admitted that the plot, in question, was sold in favour of the complainants, in a project of the opposite parties known as ‘Palm Springs’ aforesaid. Payments made by the complainants were not disputed. To say that there was lot of development in the project, some photographs were placed on record. It was stated that the project was approved on 22.03.2013 Formal agreement was signed with the Government on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018.
It was stated that exemption from the applicability of provisions of the PAPRA already stood granted by the Government concerned, in favour of the opposite parties on 25.01.2017. In view of above, act of the opposite parties in getting money deposited against expression of interest, from the purchasers stood rectified. The exemption granted will relate back to the date, when application was moved for sanction, to launch the project, in the year 2011 i.e. it is retrospective in nature. It was averred that once the State Government has not held that the opposite parties had violated the provisions of PAPRA, as such, this Commission cannot go into the said question. It was stated that as per Section 35 of the PAPRA, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to entertain and decide any question relating to matters arising under it (PAPRA). It was further averred that now the opposite parties are in possession of all the requisite permissions/clearances, in respect of the said project. Irregularities, if any, in accepting the expression of interest to purchase the land; non-execution of Buyer’s Agreement, as per Section 6 of the PAPRA etc. have no adverse effect on the project of the opposite parties. It was averred that after allotment of the plot, the complainants were requested a number of times, to come forward for execution of the buyer’s agreement, but they failed to do so. It was stated that withdrawal from the purchase is malafide and it is open to the opposite parties to forfeit upto 20% of the amount paid. It was further stated that project was delayed on account of red-tapism in the offices of the Govt. Department concerned and also business/political rivalry. The Competent Authorities delayed in granting approvals/sanctions, as far as the present project is concerned. It was also stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. It was further stated that claim of the complainants seeking interest @18% p.a. is totally unjustified. Even for fixed deposits, in the banks, rate of interest is very less. It was also stated that huge amount has been invested by the opposite parties for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. The opposite parties are trying to complete the project, as early as possible, as the development work is going on, in full swing. It was averred that time was not the essence of contract. It was pleaded that, since the Govt. concerned has given completion period of the project upto 13.06.2018, as such, said date has to be assumed for the date of delivery of possession of plot to the complainants. The opposite parties are making best efforts to complete development, so that they are able to deliver possession of the plot by March 2018 i.e. prior to 13.06.2018. As such, the complaint having been filed in September 2017, is premature. It was stated that the complainants were defaulters in making payment towards price of the said plot. It was further stated that opposite parties no.2 and 3, who are Directors of opposite party no.1 Company, have been wrongly impleaded in this complaint, in their personal capacity. Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties, it was prayed that this complaint having no substance deserves dismissal.
In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in written version of the opposite parties.
The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
We have heard the contesting parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of all the cases, carefully.
The first question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint or not.

According to Section 17 of the Act, a consumer complaint can be filed, by the complainants, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, within the territorial Jurisdiction whereof, a part of cause of action arose to them. In the instant case, perusal of almost all the documents (except few) placed on record, reveals that the same have been issued and received from/by Chandigarh Office of the opposite parties i.e. Manohar Campus, SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017. Even the letters placed on record by the opposite parties alongwith their reply, which they claimed to have sent to the complainants starting from the year 2017, also reveal that the same have been sent through registered post, by the Chandigarh Office of the opposite parties. The address of Chandigarh office of the opposite parties is found mentioned on the Indian Postal Receipts i.e. against the address of Sender it is mentioned as “From: Manohar Singh & Co. 139-141/17-C, CHD”. In view of above, it can safely be said that this Commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. The objection taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission vests with pecuniary jurisdiction or not. It may be stated here that as per Section 17 (1) (a) of the Act, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any complaint, complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. It was also so elucidated elaborately by a Large Bench of the National Commission in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs.1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 crore. ”

In the present case, total value of flat i.e. Rs.43.75 lacs, plus compensation claimed by way of interest @18% p.a. on the amount deposited to the tune of Rs.33,43,750/-; and compensation claimed for mental agony and physical harassment, if taken into consideration, it exceeds Rs.20 lacs and fell below Rs.1 crore. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The objection taken by the opposite parties, that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

There is no dispute that a plot was sold to the complainants in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite parties, against sale consideration of Rs.43.75 lacs. An amount of Rs.13,12,500/- was received by the opposite parties from the complainants, as booking amount, which was acknowledged vide receipt dated 03.10.2011 Annexure C-1. The payment made was 30% of the total sale consideration, for a plot measuring 250 square yards, in the project named ‘Palm Springs’, Mullanpur, Punjab. Thereafter, it is an admitted fact that as per demands raised by the opposite parties, the complainants kept on making payment, towards price of the said plot. Last payment in the sum of Rs.5 lacs, was made by the complainants vide cheque dated 18.08.2015. There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainants had already paid an amount of Rs.33,43,750/-. There is nothing on record to show that by the time when the project was launched and sold, before grant of exemption from the provisions of applicability of PAPRA on 25.01.2017 only, any permission was available with the opposite parties.

It is specifically brought to our notice, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the complainants that as per Guidelines to launch project in the mega housing project, (Palm Springs situated in mega housing project), it is not open to the project proponent like the opposite parties to sell the project to general public without getting proper sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities. Similar Guidelines were also brought to the notice of this Commission, in earlier complaints filed by consumers, in respect of the same project. Condition no.4 of the said Guidelines reads thus:-

“4 Conditions for grant of concessions:-

……….
The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout/zoning plans are cleared from the competent authority and exemption u/s 44 of PAPRA is issued by the Government.”

It is mandated that the project can only be launched when layout/zoning plans are cleared from the Competent Authorities and exemption is granted from operation of the provisions of PAPRA, by the Government concerned. It was also so said in the ‘Letter of Intent’ for the Grant of Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009, issued on 03.05.2013 (the said document is available in some of the paper books of cases, already filed before this Commission) issued in favour of the opposite parties, by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

At the time of arguments, it has also come to our notice that when the project was advertised and sold in the years 2011-2012, the opposite parties was not even registered with the GMADA, SAS Nagar, as a qualified project proponent, to obtain license under Section 5 of the PAPRA. Certificate of Registration was granted by the GMADA only on 27.06.2014, permitting the opposite parties to setup a colony subject to its obtaining requisite licenses, as mandated under the provisions of PAPRA.

In view of above, contention of Counsel for the complainants that the project, in question, was sold without any permission(s)/sanction(s) from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Sections 4 (1) (a) and (b) and 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provisions reads thus:-

“4. Issuing of advertisement or prospectus:-

(1) No promoter shall issue an advertisement or prospectus, offering for sale any apartment or plot, or inviting persons who intend to take such apartments or plots to make advances or deposits, unless,-

(a) the promoter holds a certificate of registration under sub-section (2) of section 21 and it is in force and has not been suspended or revoked, and its number is mentioned in the advertisement or prospectus; and

(b) a copy of the advertisement or prospectus is filed in the office of the competent authority before its issue or publication………………”.

“6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908) ;”

The fact that the project was launched without obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions having been obtained from the Competent Authorities, is further fortified from a document of the opposite parties, placed on record as Annexure O-12 (at page 89 of the file), showing in a tabular format, as to by which dates, approvals, NOCs were granted to them, by the Competent Authorities. Relevant part of the said table is reproduced hereunder:-

Sr.No.	Approval	Dated
	Approval of project	25.04.2013
	NOC from Forest Department	14.07.2014
	Approval of layout plan	06.10.2015
	Approval of zoning plan	24.11.2015
	Permission for solid water, sewerage and storm water disposal	06.07.2015
	Approval of detailed project/services plans of roads, water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, treated water supply and electrification	27.11.2015
	Grant of Consent to Establish (NOC) Water and Air	1.12.2015
	NOC from Pollution Angle	15.02.2016
	Environment Clearance	03.06.2016
	NOC for electricity connection	15.03.2017
	Extension of Grant of Consent (NOC) Water and Air	17.04.2017
	Permission for Solid Waste Disposal and Storm Water Disposal	19.05.2017

Perusal of the aforextracted table clearly reveals that not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties, when the project, in question, was launched and sold to the customers, including the complainants, in March 2011. As such, the project, in question, was launched in complete derogation of the above said provisions.

Collecting money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permissions and sanctions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It is well settled law that it is duty of the builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers. It was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31 May 2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.

It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”

Furthermore, amount accepted at the time of booking was more than 25% i.e. Rs.13,12,500/- against Rs.43,75,000/-. No Agreement was got signed, as is mandatory under the above said provisions. As such, there is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite parties that permission seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA has finally been granted only in the year 2017, which cannot be said to have any retrospective effect. As such, it could very well be said that by selling the units without authority, the opposite parties violated the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on their part.

“To get a plot allotted in the project named as ‘Palm Garden’, first payment was received by the opposite party on 11.01.2012. It is virtually admitted on record that when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. It is admitted in the written version that part of the project of the opposite party was approved much later, in the year March 2013. Formal Agreement was signed with the Govt. of Punjab on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, additional area was added and supplementary agreement was signed on 16.06.2016. Notification granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA was issued only on 25.01.2017. Perusal of the said notification makes it very clear that exemption given was conditional, as has been referred in para no.5 of the said notification. Besides other conditions, condition no.5 (iii to vii), reads thus:-

“(iii). The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.

(iv). The promoter shall acquire the ownership of project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and land under agreement to sell. The plots falling under land proposed to be acquired if any through Govt. acquisition, plot through which revenue rasta or khali passes shall not be developed and sold till these pockets are acquired and ownership is transferred in the name of the Promoter.

(v) The plots/land to which the access is proposed through the land to be acquired if any by the Government shall not be developed and sold till that land under the access is acquired and transferred in the name of the promoter and access is provided.

(vi) The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.

(vii) Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.”

It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.”.

At the time of arguments, Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, argued with vehemence that issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption from the applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, in question, will relate back to 12.09.2011, the date, on which application was filed to get licence, under the mega housing policy. In a way, it was said that when the above notification was issued, it ratifies all the mistakes/irregularities committed by the opposite parties, qua sale of plots in the year 2011-2012, without obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the Competent Authorities. To so say, reliance has been placed upon the ratio of judgment in the case of M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) SCC Page 116. On perusal of the entire record and documents, we are not going to accept the said arguments. In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), similar contention was raised and the same was rejected by this Commission, by observing as under:-

“It was contended by Counsel for the opposite party that after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the irregularities adopted by it qua sale of plots in the year 2012, etc. stands rectified. In para no.16 of its reply, it was specifically stated by the opposite party that irregularity in accepting expression of interest for sale of the plot in the said project, will have no adverse effect.

We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. As stated above, when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed or admitted irregularities made, cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.775 of 2016 decided on 23.03.2017 (02 connected cases), wherein it was observed as under:-

“It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting No Objection Certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party. Contention of Counsel for the opposite party that notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the sale of plots in the year 2011 etc. stands rectified. We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. When project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:-

“The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint.

“The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-

“PUBLIC NOTICE

This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard.

If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.

Chief Administrator

GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar”.

It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. 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. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-

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

Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-

“We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-

If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.

6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate. Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project. Therefore, it is beyond one’s comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible.”

In the present case also, there is nothing on record that when expression of interest/applications were invited to sell the said project, clear intimation was given to the intending purchasers that the project sold was in infancy stage and it will take years together before necessary permissions will be provided by the Competent Authorities.”

In the present case also, as stated above, there is nothing on record to show that when the project, in question, was sold, any permission was available with the opposite parties. It is also not proved on record that the said fact of selling the project without permissions/approvals was brought to the notice of the intending purchasers. The purchasers were not informed that it will take years for obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals, after sale of the said project. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that when notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption to the opposite parties from the applicability of some provisions of the PAPRA was granted, violations committed were brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities/Govt. The mega housing policy and the provisions of PAPRA debars any builder to advertise and sell the project before getting necessary sanctions. Merely because in some newspaper, a notice had appeared on behalf of the GMADA intimating the general public that Manohar Singh and Company is selling the project unauthorizedly, would not amount to intimation to the Competent Authorities i.e. the Govt. of Punjab, that the opposite parties have committed many mistakes, while selling the project, in question. Had those mistakes been brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities, at the relevant time, the license to launch the said project, was bound to be rejected, being in violation of provisions of the PAPRA; Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009 and mega housing policy. Any ratification is possible, in case, the mistake committed is brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities. Thereafter, only the Competent Authorities by passing a conscious order can ratify the said mistake. In the present case, merely issuance of notification aforesaid, by the Competent Authorities, on 25.01.2017, would not ratify the mistakes committed in law by the opposite parties.
Such a contention also came up for consideration, before this Commission in Shaminder Walia’s case (supra) and it was rejected by observing as under:-

“It was vehemently contended by Counsel for the opposite party that once exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA stood granted in the year January 2017, it will relate back to the date of launching of the project, and all irregularities stands rectified. To support above said contention, he has placed reliance on the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 130.

We are not going to accept the arguments raised. It has already been held in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra) that upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA, violation committed prior thereto, cannot be rectified. To so say, in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra), reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Monika`s case (supra). The said finding was given in consonance with the findings of the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another`s case (supra).

As far as the reliance placed by Counsel for the opposite party on M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics` case (supra) is concerned, we have gone through the facts of the same very carefully and found that the same were altogether different from the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it was stated that power of the Government to grant exemption with regard to the land, in any area from operation of some of the provisions of the Act, for using the said land for a particular purpose, are to be seen, not at the time of sale/purchase of the land in dispute, but at the time, when it was going to be put for the said use. It was noted that after sale of the land, in dispute, when it was going to be put for industrial use, exemption already stood granted. The position is altogether different; as in the present case, by indulging into selling the project without any sanctions in its hands, the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice, as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) (i) and (iii) of the CP Act.

It is apparent on record that in the year 2012, activities of the opposite party in selling the project, without any sanction were noticed by the Competent Authorities and on 18.08.2012, as a result whereof, notice was published in a newspaper, stating that such sale was illegal. Copy of newspaper dated 18.08.2012, in which the said public notice was issued by the GMADA, is placed on record as Annexure C-10, in consumer complaint bearing no.890 of 2016, titled as Sheela Devi and another Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited.”.

In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), it was vehemently contended that M/s Manohar Singh and Co. and the opposite parties namely M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., are two different identities and notice issued in the said newspaper qua M/s Manohar Singh and Co. will not have any effect, so far, the project of the opposite parties (M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) is concerned. The said contention was rejected by this Commission, by placing reliance upon various documents and the photographs.

In the present case, it was fairly admitted by Counsel for the opposite parties that the opposite parties are part and parcel of M/s Manohar Singh and Co. Above fact clearly demonstrates that the GMADA, when came to know about unauthorized sale of a project, issued a notice asking general public not to purchase any property from the opposite parties and also contemplating a legal action. However, it appears that no such legal action was taken against the opposite parties. It may be on account of connivance of the opposite parties with Offices of the said Authority.

Further contention of Counsel for the complainants is that amount was received without offering Buyer’s Agreement for signing, within a reasonable period say two or three months and it was ultimately offered for signing, after a period of more than five years. This fact is clearly admitted on record. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent upon the project proponent to execute Buyer’s Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three months. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing within reasonable time, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and also were deficient in providing service. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated 23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer’s Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer’s Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected”.

As such, in the present case, by not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.

A plea was also taken by the opposite parties, in its written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.

It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite parties, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite parties having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints), decided on 14 Aug 2015, which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite parties failed to convince this Commission, that they actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, is rejected.

At time of arguments, it was also vehemently contended by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties that application to get mega project approved, was filed in the year 2011. Delay occurred on account of laxity on the part of the bureaucrats/Competent Authorities in granting permissions/ approvals and further it was deliberately delayed, because of rivalry existing between the political party in power and the Managing Director/Directors of the Company.

Such a plea has been taken just to raise it without any material on record. It may be stated here that the application to get necessary permissions, was moved in the year 2011 before the Competent Authorities, what happened thereafter; whether any objection was raised; whether at any point of time, it was taken up with the Authorities concerned, to give permission(s), within three months, as per Rules or not, has not been made clear. There is nothing on record that when the Competent Authorities allegedly did not grant permissions/approvals and delayed the matter, any reminders were sent to them, to do the needful. Not even a single document has been placed on record that the Competent Authorities delayed the matter deliberately, despite the fact that necessary steps were taken at the end of the opposite parties, for obtaining requisite permissions, for launching and selling the said project. At the same time, there is nothing on record, whether any Officer(s) of the Management of this Company was/were the member(s) of any political party; they ever contested any election; and whether question of rivalry causing delay on account of political reasons was ever taken up before the Competent Fora/Court of Law. It is on record that to get necessary permission qua the land in the project, applications were moved in parts. The opposite parties continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite parties, stands rejected.

Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that the complainants are investors, as such, they are not consumers. To strengthen his stand, Counsel for the opposite parties, at the time of arguments, submitted that as complainant no.2 has purchased one more plot, in the project, in dispute (subject matter of consumer complaint no.660 of 2017), as such, in this view of the matter also, the complainants would not fall with the definition of consumer. We are not going to accept this argument. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other hand, the complainants in their complaint have clearly stated that the plot, in question, was purchased by them for their personal use i.e. to settle themselves near to Chandigarh and that they do not own any other property in Chandigarh. In consumer complaint no.660 of 2017 also, it has been submitted by the complainants, that the said plot was purchased by them for their personal use. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he has purchased more than one houses or plots. Separate plots may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person may buy two or three houses, if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite parties, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite parties has levelled allegations against the complainants, the onus lay upon them, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which they failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-

“ In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015.”

The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite parties, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties are unable to deliver possession of the developed plot, in question, for want of development/construction, basic amenities etc. and still firm date of delivery of actual physical possession of the plot, could not be given to the complainants. It was only stated that the opposite parties are making efforts to deliver possession of the plot, in question and that possession of the plot will be delivered in March 2018 i.e. during pendency of this complaint. However, no such offer was ever made by the opposite parties, if at all; the project was developed, in all respects. However, on the other hand, photographs placed on record by the opposite parties themselves, reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. It can easily be revealed from the said photographs (at page 72 of the file) that still lot of work is pending to be done as far as the roads, parks etc. are concerned. Sanitary/sewerage pipes are found lying in open ground. It can be adjudged from the photographs placed at page 69 of the file, that only entrance of the project has been beautified, to allure the innocent customers. Otherwise, photographs itself prove the position of the project, as in 2018. The plot was booked in the year 2011 and now it is June 2018. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by them. The opposite parties, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the plot. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation in providing service, on the part of the opposite parties. It is a settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:-

“I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest.”

Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-

“Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.

Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-

“I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery”.

The complainants, are, thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by them. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite parties are also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.

Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint filed was premature and that time was not the essence of contract, in the face of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, whereby the Govt. of Punjab, has granted permission to complete the project by 13.06.2018. It may be stated here that we have gone through the contents of the Agreement dated 16.06.2016 and are of the considered opinion that it is of no help to the opposite parties, as far delay in delivery of possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants are concerned. The said Agreement was signed between the opposite parties and the Govt. of Punjab, only in relation to permission sought by them (opposite parties), vide letter dated 25.08.2015 (after about more than three and a half years of booking of the present plot), for addition of 94.60 acres of more land in the project area. It was on account of this reason, that supplementary agreement was executed.

At the same time, if this plea taken by the opposite parties that since supplementary agreement was executed on 16.06.2016 between them and the Govt. of Punjab and as such, now the opposite parties are liable to hand over possession of the plot to the complainants latest by 13.06.2018, is considered in favour of the opposite parties, then it would amount to admittance on their (opposite parties) part that till 16.06.2016, they were not in possession of the land even, but on the other hand, they had booked a plot and received 30% of the price of the plot, as far as back in 2011 and Rs.33,43,750/- (about 80% of sale consideration) by 18.08.2015, by misleading the complainants, that possession of the plot will be delivered within two years from the date of booking. Furthermore, it is not clarified by the opposite parties that if the land for plot was ultimately got in their hands, by way of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, then for which land, they were talking about in the application acknowledgment receipt dated 03.10.2011 issued in favour of the complainants, saying that all layout plans, specification and other details are tentative. If this is so, it amounts to grave unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as they have received an amount of Rs.33,43,750/-, against a plot by August 2015, but on the other hand, till 15.06.2016, they have not even acquired land for the same (plot). Sequence of events narrated above, clearly goes to prove that the conduct of the opposite parties, throughout remained contumacious. As stated above, not even a single permission to launch the project was available with the opposite parties at the relevant time. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, permissions continued to pour in, upto the year 2017. Even as on today, there is nothing on record to show that development at the site is complete. Despite request made, refund of the amount paid by the complainants towards price of the said plot, has not been made. It can safely be said that the complainants were well within their right, to file this complaint. It was nowhere agreed to between the parties, at the time of booking of the said plot, that the complainants can be made to wait for an indefinite period. If the opposite parties did not offer buyer’s agreement for more than five years of booking, they cannot take shelter under any plea and say that time was not the essence of contract or that the complaint filed is premature.

Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the face of provisions of the RERA, under which the opposite parties have registered the project, in question, on 15.09.2017, it was not open to this Commission, to entertain and decide the present complaint. He further asserted that sufficient safeguard is provided under the provisions of RERA and if the complainants are feeling aggrieved of any action, on the part of the opposite parties, they may approach under the said Act (RERA) and not under the Act, 1986.

We are not inclined to accept this argument. At the time of arguments, it is very fairly admitted by Counsel for the contesting parties, that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. It was also so said by the High Court of Bombay in the case of NeelKamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors. 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 298. It is on record that under the RERA, the opposite parties got themselves registered their project, only on 15.09.2017. It is also on record that some of the provisions of RERA came into operation on 01.05.2016 and even the remaining of it, in May 2017. In all, the grievance has been raised by the complainants qua wrongful act/mistake done leading to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, in selling the project by the opposite parties without sanctions/approvals, before coming into existence of RERA. Reading of the provisions of Section 88 of RERA makes it very clear that the same are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Section 79 of the RERA further makes it very clear that jurisdiction of only the Civil Court to entertain a suit or proceedings qua action taken as per the provisions of the said Act, is barred.

It may be stated here that the Consumer Foras under the Act, 1986 despite having some trappings of a Civil Court are not the Civil Courts. As such, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras is not debarred, to entertain the complaints filed by consumers, alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. Intention of the framers of law has been made clear by the concerned Department i.e. Ministry of Housing and Urban Property Alleviation, Government of India in its website

“85. Are the civil courts and consumer forums barred from entertaining disputes under the Act?

As per section 79 of the Act civil courts are barred from entertaining disputes (suits or proceedings) in respect of matters which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine. However, the consumer forums (National, State or District) have not been barred from the ambit of the Act. Section 71 proviso permits the complainant to withdraw his complaint as regards matters under section 12, 14, 18 and section 19, from the consumer forum and file it with the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act.

86. Can a complainant approach both the Regulatory Authority / adjudicating officer and the consumer forums for the same disputes?

The laws of the country do not permit forum shopping, thus, an aggrieved can only approach one of the two for disputes over the same matter.”

It was also so said by the State of Punjab in its Official Website Portal rera.punjab.gov.in. The above fact clearly indicates that in the face of provisions of the RERA, any action taken under the provisions of Act 1986 is not debarred.

Be that as it may, a similar question came up for consideration, before this Commission, when considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration Act 1996 Act viz a viz CPA 1986, in the case of ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, wherein, it was observed as under:-

“ “The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the face of existence of arbitration Clause in the Agreement, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

To decide above said question, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act), which reads as under;

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

It is also desirable to reproduce unamended provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, which reads thus:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.

(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made.”

Many a times, by making reference to the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act, in the past also, such objections were raised and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act, in the cases of Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233, Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013) etc., came to a conclusion that the remedy provided under Section 3 of 1986 Act, is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement, to settle disputes, will not debar the Consumer Foras, to entertain the complaints, filed by the consumers.

In the year 2015, many amendments were effected in the provisions of 1996 Act. After amendment, Section 8 of 1996 Act, reads as under:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—

(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.”

Now it is to be seen, whether, after amendment in Section 8 of the principal Act, any additional right has accrued to the service provider(s), to say that on account of existence of arbitration agreement, for settling the disputes through an Arbitrator, the Consumer Foras have no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, and also of the National Commission, in large number of judgments, Section 3 of the 1986 Act, provides additional remedy, notwithstanding any other remedy available to a consumer. The said remedy is also not in derogation to any other Act/Law.

Now, we will have to see what difference has been made by the amendment, in the provisions of Section 8 of 1996 Act. After amendment, it reads that a Judicial Authority is supposed to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement, notwithstanding any judgment, decree, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other Court, unless it finds that prima facie, no valid arbitration agreement exists. The legislation was alive to the ratio of the judgments, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. Vide those judgments, it is specifically mandated that under Section 3 of 1986 Act, an additional remedy is available to the consumer(s), which is not in derogation to any other Act. As and when any argument was raised, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the National Commission in the judgments, referred to above, have made it very clear that in the face of Section 8 of 1996 Act and existence of arbitration agreement, it is still opened to the Consumer Foras to entertain the consumer complaints. None of the judgments ever conferred any jurisdiction upon the Consumer Foras to entertain such like complaints. Only the legal issues, as existed in the Statute Book, were explained vide different judgments. If we look into amended provisions of Section 8 of the principal Act, it explains that judicial Authority needs to refer dispute, in which arbitration agreement exist to settle the disputes notwithstanding any judgment/decree or order of any Court. That may be true where in a case, some order has been passed by any Court, making arbitration Agreement non-applicable to a dispute/parties. However, in the present case, the above said argument is not available. The jurisdiction of Consumer Foras to entertain consumer complaints, in the face of arbitration clause in the Agreement, is in-built in 1986 Act. It was not given to these Foras, by any judgment ever. The provisions of Section 3 of 1986 Act interpreted vide judgments vis a vis Section 8 of un-amended 1996 Act, were known to the legislature, when the amended Act 2015 was passed. If there was any intention on the part of the legislature, then it would have been very conveniently provided that notwithstanding any remedy available in 1986 Act, it would be binding upon the judicial Authority to refer the matter to an Arbitrator, in case of existence of arbitration agreement, however, it was not so said.

We can deal with this issue, from another angle also. If this contention raised is accepted, it will go against the basic spirit of 1986 Act. The said Act (1986) was enacted to protect poor consumers against might of the service providers/multinational companies/traders. As in the present case, the complainant has spent his life savings to get a unit, for his residential purpose. His hopes were shattered. Litigation in the Consumer Fora is cost effective. It does not involve huge expenses and further it is very quick. A complaint in the State Commission can be filed, by making payment between Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- (in the present case Rs.4000/-). As per the mandate of 1986 Act, a complaint is supposed to be decided within three months, from the date of service to the opposite party. In cases involving ticklish issues (like the present one, maximum not more than six months to seven months time can be consumed), whereas, to the contrary, as per the principal Act (1996 Act), the consumer will be forced to incur huge expenses towards his/her share of Arbitrator’s fees. Not only as above, it is admissible to an Arbitrator, to decide a dispute within one year. Thereafter, the Court wherever it is challenged may also take upto one year and then there is likelihood that the matter will go to the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such an effort will be a time consuming and costly one. Taking note of fee component and time consumed in arbitration, it can safely be said that if the matter is referred to an Arbitrator, as prayed, in the present case, it will defeat the very purpose of the provisions of 1986 Act.

The 1986 Act provides for better protection of interests and rights of the consumers. For the said purpose, the Consumer Foras were created under the Act. In Section 3 of 1986 Act, it is clearly provided that the said provision is in addition to and not in derogation of any provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. The 1986 Act is special legislation qua the consumers. The poor consumers are not expected to fight the might of multinational companies/traders, as those entities have lot of resources at their command. As stated above, in the present case, the complainant has spent his entire life earnings to purchase the plot, in the said project, launched by the opposite party. However, his hopes were shattered, when despite making substantial payment of the sale consideration, he failed to get possession of the plot, in question, in a developed project. As per ratio of the judgments in the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), the consumers are always in a weak position, and in cases where two interpretations are possible, the one beneficial to the consumer needs to be accepted. The opinion expressed above, qua applicability of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, has been given keeping in mind the above said principle.

Not only this, recently, it was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as Lt. Col. Anil Raj & anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Limited, and another, Consumer Case No.346 of 2013, decided on 02.05.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-

“In so far as the question of a remedy under the Act being barred because of the existence of Arbitration Agreement between the parties, the issue is no longer res-integra. In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has been held that even if there exists an arbitration clause in the agreement and a Complaint is filed by the consumer, in relation to certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar for the entertainment of the Complaint by a Consumer Fora, constituted under the Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The reasoning and ratio of these decisions, particularly in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) Through LRs. & Others - (2004) 1 SCC 305; still holds the field, notwithstanding the recent amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986. [Also see: Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - (2000) 5 SCC 294 and National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. - (2012) 2 SCC 506.] It has thus, been authoritatively held that the protection provided to the Consumers under the Act is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute, including the consentient arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1986.”

It was authoritatively said that in view of Section 3 of the Act 1986, it is open to the consumers to approach the Consumer Foras, for redressal of their grievance, notwithstanding that he can get relief under any other Act. Similar findings, to the effect that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017, vide order dated 13.02.2018.

In view of above findings, we can safely say that RERA and PAPRA will not debar the jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties.

It is necessary to mention here that alongwith Monika’s case supra, one more case titled as Virinder Bharadwaj Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Complaint case No.252 of 2016, was filed before this Commission. Both the complaints were allowed by this Commission vide common order dated 27.09.2016. Aggrieved of that order, the opposite parties went in appeal bearing no.1436 of 2016 before the National Commission. The opposite parties therein, has assailed the above said judgment, to the extent only of granting interest on the principal amount involved and payment of compensation and litigation expenses. Notice was issued confined to that extent. The opposite parties were directed to refund the principal amount paid by the complainant in that case. Above fact would mean that on merits, the opposite parties have failed to lay challenge to the judgment passed by this Commission, referred to above.
In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision of PAPRA by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the opposite parties that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed. It may be stated here that it was an outright sale, when first payment of Rs.13,12,500/- was accepted by the opposite parties, vide receipt Annexure C-1 pertaining to the year 2011. Thereafter also, the amount was received by the opposite parties and in all, they have received substantial amount of Rs.33,43,750/- till August 2015. Above said contention raised by the opposite parties, qua similar project, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, wherein it was observed as under:-

“Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice.”

It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite parties. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite parties were guilty of launching a project against mandate of law.
In view of above, contention of Counsel for the opposite parties that since the complainants have themselves showed their preference for a plot, which was allotted to them in the year 2015, as such, the delay if any will be deemed to have been waived of by them, stands rejected. There is nothing on record to show that plot was selected by the complainants and further when the plot was sold not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties. There is nothing on record to show that delay caused was condoned by the complainants. Reliance placed by the opposite parties on Krishna Bahadur Vs. M/s Purna Theater, 2004 (4) S.C.T 137, is of no help to them, as far as facts of the present case are concerned, because facts of that case are altogether different.
It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that amount aforesaid, was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite parties, for their own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335. In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited, alongwith interest on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of payments actually made by them.
In consumer complaint bearing no.776 of 2017, complainant no.1 had purchased a plot and it was transferred to his son i.e. complainant no.2 on 15.07.2015. Sh.l.P. Singh, Counsel for the opposite parties contended that relief if any granted, in the shape of compensation/interest, will be available to complainant no.2, from the date of endorsement of the said unit only. It may be stated here that it is on record that the original plot measuring 250 square yards was purchased by complainant no.1 on 15.12.2011, when an amount of Rs.12,25,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 15.12.2011. Later on, the said plot was transferred to complainant no.2, who is the son of complainant no.1. There is no dispute to that extent. If it is so, whatever relief is available, that will go to complainant no.2, it being a family transaction. There is nothing on record to show that any premium was received by complainant no.1 from complainant no.2. Complainant no.1, after transfer of plot had no interest left in it. Similar view was taken by this Commission in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, CC No.775 of 2016, decided on 23.03.2017.
As far as the plea raised, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not the case of the opposite parties that within a reasonable period say two to three years, from the date of booking of the said plot, they were ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainants but the complainants wanted to rescind, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/financial constraints or for any personal reason, and are seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite parties, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that the complainants are entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. Otherwise also, since in the present case, Agreement was not got executed between the opposite parties, as such, no terms and conditions, whatsoever, were applicable to the complainants. At the same time, merely placing on record some reminder letters to the complainants, for execution of buyer’s agreement, starting from January 2017, will not absolve the liability of the opposite parties, by saying that since the complainants did not come forward to do so and also to pay the remaining sale consideration, as such, they being defaulters are not entitled to any claim. Why the opposite parties were silent for more than six years for execution of the agreement and that too after receiving Rs.33,43,750/-, has not been clarified. It appears that the opposite parties started writing such letters for execution of the agreement, when they found that in number of complaints filed against them, a specific finding has been recorded against them, by this Commission, that they are deficient on this count, which act amounted to gross unfair trade practice. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite parties, that the complainants failed to come forward for execution of buyer’s agreement, when letters were sent starting from 2017 onwards, is nothing, but a tool to escape from their liability and is accordingly rejected.
At the same time, it is also held that no complicated question of facts and law are involved in this case. It is a simple case of non-execution of agreement within the reasonable time; non allotment of plot; and non-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainants, in the project of the opposite parties. There is ample evidence on record, which proves that the opposite parties were deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice. This Commission is, therefore, competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Plea taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
As far as the objection with regard to impleading of opposite parties no.2 and 3, in their personal capacity, is concerned, we do not agree with it. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the above-named persons are not their Managing Director and Director. As such, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company. A similar controversy arose for determination before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017, wherein, it was held as under:-

“From the material on record, it is evident that the OP-2 is the Chairman of the Company whereas the OP-3 is the Chief Executive Officer-cum-M.D. of the said company. Evidently, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the company. By virtue of their office, they can directly influence any decision regarding relief to be granted to the complainant, as asked for in the consumer complaint. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the interim application, rejecting the plea of the appellants to delete the name of OP-2 & OP-3 from the array of parties. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.”

In view of above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties stands rejected.

For the reasons recorded above, all the seven complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

In consumer complaint bearing no.659 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.33,43,750/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 36 of 2018, the opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.36,07,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.

Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, as its name had already been got deleted by the complainant.

In consumer complaint bearing no.857 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.22,50,000/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.

In consumer complaint bearing no.834 of 2017, the opposite parties no.1 to 3, jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.22,50,000/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.

Complaint against opposite party no.4 is dismissed with no order as to costs, as its name had already been got deleted by the complainants.

In consumer complaint bearing no.776 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.22,50,000/- to the complainant no.2, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant no.2, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant no.2.

In consumer complaint bearing no.660 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.33,43,750/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 (one) lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.

In consumer complaint bearing no.737 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.13,87,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.75,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant.

The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii) above, shall be made, in all the complaints, in the manner ordered above, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the date of default and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in any of the above complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards their respective units, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants). It is further made clear that, in case, in any of complaints above, the complainants have obtained housing loan, under subvention scheme, the builder/opposite party(s) shall deduct the amount of Pre-EMI interest, if any, paid by it to the financial Institution/Bank concerned, from the amount so ordered to be refunded to the complainant(s).
Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected files, referred to above.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

28.06.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/834/2017

Amaninder Preet - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Nehra, Adv.

28 Jun 2018

ORDER

V e r s u s

PRESIDENT

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

V e r s u s

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319