Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/423/2020

Veena Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jagan Nath Bhandari

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	423 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	01.09.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	15.03.2024

 

 

 

 

Veena Rani, aged 58 years, wife of Sh.Anil Sareen, earlier resident of House No.1387, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh, now residing at House No.201, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited having its Office at SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, through its Director Sh.Tarninder Singh and Sh.Narinderbir Singh.

2]  Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, Office address: SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, resident of House No.246, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

3]  Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited, Office Address: SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, resident of House No.246, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

    ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Present:     Sh.Jagan Nath Bhandari, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Nitesh Singhi, Counsel for the OPs

 

 

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

         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that in a residential project nakely “Palam Spring” at Mullanpur, District SAS Nagar, Punjab, one Sh.Paramjit Singh had booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards and the complainant purchased it and got it transferred in her name from OPs. Accordingly, the OPs transferred the said residential plot in her name vide Transfer-001, dated 18.03.2013 (Ann.C-2). It is stated that the total sale price of the plot was Rs.14,540/- per sq. yards i.e. Rs.36,35,000/-BSP and out of this, the complainant had paid Rs.10,90,500/- (Ann.C-2).  It is submitted that the OPs orally informed the complainant that the possession of the plot shall be delivered to her till end of 2014.  However, the OPs did not execute agreement to sell despite several requests & visit of the complainant and assured her about delivery of possession.  The complainant also came to now that the OPs were not having approvals but still the OPs assured her about delivery of possession of the plot in question by Dec., 2014.  It is pleaded that the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the plot in question till date despite though her husband had retired from service in the year 2020 and she had already paid an amount of Rs.10,90,500/- and still ready to pay the balance amount.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to directed the OPs to handover the possession of the plot and also to pay interest, damages, compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       After service of notice upon the OPs, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written version that got the Expression of Interest transferred in her name from the initial buyer by paying an amount of Rs.10,90,000/- to the OPs but the OPs never promised to deliver the possession of the plot by the date alleged by the complainant.  It is stated that the said project is likely to complete by Dec., 2022.  It is also stated that the complainant never approached answering OPs for alleged agreement nor she deposited any further amount and she is a defaulter.  It is submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story as she was neither having sufficient fund nor she paid any further amount after booking of plot. It is asserted that the OP Company had already allotted Plot to a number of customers who have deposited amount as per schedule and the Company has also executed Buyer’s Agreement. It is also submitted that possession of the plots are being handed over to the applicants who have executed the Plot Buyer’s Agreement as per the terms & conditions and sale deed are also being executed in their favour.  It is pleaded that in case majority of the customers seek refund of the amount by surrounding their plot, it will be difficult for the OPs to continue with the project since it will not be possible to refund the amount at this stage. It is also pleaded that multistoried flats constructed by the OP Company are in Ready to Move category, the sewerage, water supply, storm water, electricity works etc. have been completed in the first phase of the project. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

5]       From the record & pleadings, it is observed that the complainant admittedly has booked a residential plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the subject project of the OPs by paying Booking Amount of Rs.10,90,500/- on 18.3.2013 against its Basic Sale Price of Rs.36,35,000/- (Ann.C-2). However, the OPs neither issued allotment letter nor executed Plot Buyer’ Agreement with the complainant despite receipt of booking amount. More so, the OPs have failed to justify as to why they did not allot and deliver the possession of the booked plot to the complainant till date the despite receipt of booking amount even after a period of more than 11 years had already lapsed till date since the date of booking i.e. March, 2013.  Thus it is clear that the OPs have failed to fulfill their contractual obligation by allotting & offering the possession of the plot to the complainant, having basic amenities, within a reasonable time period.

6]       It is settled law by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed:

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers.

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

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

          Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the plot in question certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 

7]       In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it is held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  Similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766), while holding as under:-

“…….We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[1]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[2]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [3] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [4] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms “consumer” and “service” under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :

“5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6):

“…when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act….”

 

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: -

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

 

8]       In our opinion, the complainant is not obliged to accept any other offer of OPs when they failed to deliver the possession of the plot despite receipt of part payment and failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant, but also caused her immense harassment & mental agony.    

9]       In the instant case, the buying of plot at huge price by complainant and not getting it till date has caused immense pain, insecurity and nervousness to buyer/complainant who appear to be a helpless victim of OPs unethical business tricks.    

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.  Therefore, the present complaint stands partly allowed against the OPs No.1 to 3 with directions to deliver to the complainant the physical possession of Plot measuring 250 sq. yards in the project ‘The Palm’, Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, having all basic facilities & amenities, subject to balance payment and other charges, if any.

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 jointly & severally, in all above referred cases, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

11]      Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.    

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.03.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER