Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/463/2017

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Chopra, Adv.

26 Mar 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	463 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	02.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Harjinder Singh S/o Sh.Surinder Singh, R/o #274 E, Ground Floor, Silver Birch, Omex New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, Distt. Mohali.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited.

Both Resp. No.2 and 3, Office address at Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

.... 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.Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Dipinder Singh Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.I.P. Singh, Sh.Aman Bahri, Sh.Simran Singh, Sh.Gaurav Rana and Ms.Megha Chauhan, Advocates for the opposite parties alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.239 of 2017, titled as Mrs.Bimla Devi and anr. Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.

Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 239 of 2017 shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 239 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.	:	239 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	21.03.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Mrs.Bimla Devi, w/o Sh.Kiran Pal, R/o House #123, Sector 11, Panchkula.
Mrs.Samita Kaur, wife of Sh.Baljinder Singh, R/o House #123, Sector 11, Panchkula.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Director/Manager.

....Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Anshuman Chopra, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Dipinder Singh Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.I.P. Singh, Sh.Aman Bahri, Sh.Simran Singh, Sh.Gaurav Rana and Ms.Megha Chauhan, Advocates for the opposite party alongwith Sh.Arvinder Singh, Company Secretary.

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

Complaint case No.	:	333 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Ashu Goel w/o Sh.Satish Goel, R/o H.No.84, Shivalik Enclave, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Corporate Office at Manohar Campus, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

....Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sumit Narang, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Complaint case No.	:	389 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Vinod Kumar s/o Sh.Jai Gopal Gupta, R/o H.No.23-A, BRS Nagar, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Sh.Taraninder Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.
Sh.Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	434 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	23.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Pawan Kumar son of Sh.Bachan Dass, presently residing at House No.462, First Floor, Phase-6, Mohali and permanent resident of Village Sehjowal, PO Sukhsal, Tehsil Nangal Dam, Ropar, Punjab.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Sh.Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Sh.Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	474 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Daljit Singh S/o Sh.Balbir Singh, R/o H.No.3759, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Sh.Taraninder Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.
Sh.Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	473 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.Sagli Ram, R/o H.No.2072, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
Hitesh Sharma S/o Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma, R/o H.No.2072, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh, presently residing at 2305-4065 Brickstone Mews, Mississauga, Ontario, L5B, 0G3, through General Power of Attorney Holder Sh.Raj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.Sagli Ram, R/o H.No.2072, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Sh.Taraninder Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.
Sh.Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, R/o House No.246, Sector 9C, Chandigarh-160009.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	700 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	19.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Mr.Anil Kumar son of Late Sh.Chaman Lal and Mrs.Suman wife of Mr.Anil Kumar both residence of House No.294, Sector 49-A, Advocate Complex, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
Safe Guard Housing Pvt. Limited, T-III/5-Type-III, South Campus, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director M.L. Narang.
Safe Guard Housing Pvt. Limited, T-III/5-Type-III, South Campus, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Chander Shekhar.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Manish Joshi, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

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

Complaint case No.	:	699 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	19.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Sh.Vinod Kumar son of Late Sh.Lal Chand and Smt.Usha wife of Sh.Vinod Kumar both residence of House No.1919/11, Moti Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
Safe Guard Housing Pvt. Limited, T-III/5-Type-III, South Campus, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director M.L. Narang.
Safe Guard Housing Pvt. Limited, T-III/5-Type-III, South Campus, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Chander Shekhar.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Abhishek Bhateja, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Manish Joshi, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sahil Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

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

Complaint case No.	:	552 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

C.M. Malhotra son of Sh.K.C. Malhotra, H.No.333, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.
Rishi Malhotra son of Sh.C.M. Malhotra, H.No.333, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh, through his father and SPA Holder Sh.C.M. Malhotra.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	649 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Anil Gupta S/o Sh.Uma Chand Gupta, aged about 64 years, R/o House No.1324, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.
Abhishek Gupta S/o Sh.Anil Gupta, aged about 33 years, R/o House No.1324, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Head Office at SCO 139-141, Bridge Road, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the complainants.

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

Complaint case No.	:	320 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	17.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Mrs. Savita Kakar W/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar Kakar.
Sanjay Kakar S/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar Kakar,

Both Resident of House No.1614, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh-160043.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
Tarminder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
Manohar Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

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

Complaint case No.	:	497 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Rupinder Singh s/o S.Kishan Singh, R/o H.No.4205, Urban Estate, Ph.II, Patiala.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Inder Mohan Parihar, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Complaint case No.	:	494 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Neelakshi Chopra w/o Pramod Kumar Chopra, r/o H.No.92, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh, U.T.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Inder Mohan Parihar, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Complaint case No.	:	499 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	23.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Kanwaljit Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh aged 65 years, resident of House No.1618, Sector 40, Chandigarh.
Jaskaran Singh son of Shri Manjit Singh, aged 28 years, resident of House No.4, Geeta Vihar, Threeke Road, Vill. Threeke, Ludhiana (Punjab).

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office; Manohar Complex SCO 139-141, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

2^nd Address:- Site Office at Mega Residential Township situated in Village Garibdas, Mullanpur, Dhanauran, Mastgarh, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).

Tarninder Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at Manohar Complex SCO 139-141, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its Registered Office at Manohar Complex SCO 139-141, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

Argued by: Sh.Ankur Bali, Advocate proxy for Sh.Vikas Jain, Advocate for the complainants.

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

Complaint case No.	:	369 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Gurjinder Singh son of S.Harnek Singh resident of V.P.O. Kakuwala, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	690 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	12.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Madan Lal Saini S/o Sh.Banta Ram Saini, R/o House No.B-6/130, Street No.10, Satguru Nagar, Nawanshahar, Punjab-144514.
Himanshu Saini, s/o Sh.Madan Lal Saini, R/o House No.349, First Floor, Phase 4, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160059.
Kusum Lata Saini W/o Sh.Madan Lal Saini, D/o Late Sh.Baldev Krishan Singh, R/o House No.B-6/130, Street No.10, Satguru Nagar, Nawanshahar, Punjab-144514.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	652 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Dhrub Chand Rana son of Late Sh.Arjun Singh Dhadwal, r/o House.5653, Modern Housing Duplex, Mani-Majra, U.T. Chandigarh

Now deceased represented by:-

Smt.Sarla Devi, wife of Late Sh.Dhrub Chand Rana.
Vinay Dhadwal, son of Late Sh.Dhrub Chand Rana
Renu Patial wife of Col. Jaideep Singh Patial and daughter of Late Sh.Dhrub Chand Rana
Manju Pathania d/o Late Sh.Dhrub Chand Rana

All residents of House No. 5653, Modern Housing Duplex, Mani-Majra, U.T. Chandigarh

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO 139-141, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainants.

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

Complaint case No.	:	651 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	31.08.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Maj.Jaideep Singh Patial son of Sh.Dhian Singh Patial, resident of House No. 5653, Modern Housing Duplex, Mani-Majra, U.T. Chandigarh, through his father-in-law, Dhrub Chand Rana son of Late Sh.Arjun Singh Dhadwal, r/o House No. 5653, Modern Housing Duplex, Mani-Majra, U.T. Chandigarh, GPA Holder.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO 139-141, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Complaint case No.	:	463 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	02.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Harjinder Singh S/o Sh.Surinder Singh, R/o #274 E, Ground Floor, Silver Birch, Omex New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, Distt. Mohali.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Corporate Office Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Narinderbir Singh, Director of M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited.

Both Resp. No.2 and 3, Office address at Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	435 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	23.05.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Om Parkash Sharma son of Sh.Sukhbir Sharma resident of House No.5100, Ground Floor, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh, U.T.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	559 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Varinder Kumar Singla, son of Sh.Gian Chand Singla, Resident of House No.32, Upkar Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147004.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Registered office Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, through its Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	557 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Neelu Mehta daughter of Late Sh.Sudhir K.Mehta, resident of Mehtan Street, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Registered office Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, through its Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	558 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Santosh Singla wife of Sh.Gian Chand Singla, Resident of House No.32, Upkar Nagar, Patiala, Punjab-147004.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Registered office Manohar Campus SCO 139-141, Level-1, Sector 17-C, through its Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	493 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Pramod Kumar Chopra s/o Late Sh.B.P. Chopra, r/o H.No.92, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh U.T.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

.... Opposite Party

Argued by: Sh.Inder Mohan Parihar, Advocate for the complainant.

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

Complaint case No.	:	504 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Sudesh Raghav wife of Sh.Ravinder Singh resident of House No.2001, HIG, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

Complaint case No.	:	503 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.06.2017
Date of Decision	:	26.03.2018

Ashok Shreedhar son of Sh.Brahm Dutt resident of Flat No.203, GH-2, Shikhar Apartments, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector-5, Panchkula.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, having its registered office at SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.

.... Opposite Parties

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

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

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 26 (twenty-six) consumer complaints, filed by respective complainants, wherein they (including consumer complaint nos.699 and 700 of 2017 in which at the time of arguments complainants, pressed for refund alongwith interest etc.) have sought refund of the amount, paid towards purchase of residential plot(s)/units. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 09.03.2018. 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 complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint bearing No.239 of 2017, Mrs.Bimla Devi and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited. The complainants are closely related to each other. Allured by issuance of misleading advertisements, showing rosy pictures of the project launched by the opposite party, under the name and style, ‘Palm Garden’ situated at Mullanpur Garibdas, New Chandigarh, Punjab, the complainants opted to purchase one residential plot therein, measuring 250 square yards, @Rs.19,500/- per square yard, for their residential purposes. Total price of the said plot was fixed at Rs.48.75 lacs, excluding external development charges. At the time of booking of the plot, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.14,62,500/-. Thereafter also, they paid an amount of Rs.9 lacs, to the opposite party. In this manner, they paid a total amount of Rs.23,62,500/-, which was acknowledged by the opposite party vide receipt dated 16.06.2012, Annexure P-1.

It is specific case of the complainants that at the time of purchase of the said plot, they were assured that the project is approved from the Competent Authorities and possession of developed plot will be handed over within a period of 2 years, from the date of making payment of the booking amount. To say so, reference was made to letter Annexure P-2, wherein it is stated that the Company had signed memorandum of understanding, with the Govt. of Punjab, in the month of December 2013. Change of Land Use (CLU) stood issued in favour of the Company and further plot number will be issued in the month of December 2014. Thereafter, the complainants continued to visit the office of the opposite party, however, possession of the developed plot, was not offered and delivered by the promised date. On visit by the complainants to the site, it was noticed that there was no development. The complainants also came across a notice, which appeared in newspaper namely “Dainik Bhaskar” on 09.10.2016, showing that there was no development at the project site.

When it was realized by the complainants that delivery of possession of the plot is not in sight, they sent a legal notice on 22.12.2016, to the opposite party, seeking refund of amount paid i.e. Rs.23,62,500/-, alongwith interest, however, they failed to get any response. Personal visits of the complainants made thereafter to the office of the opposite party, failed to move it (opposite party) ahead, in the matter. Alleging that by not handing over possession of the plot, as per promise made and/or in the alternative, by not refunding the amount paid alongwith interest etc., it was stated that the opposite party is deficient in rendering service and also adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint was filed seeking following relief: -
1. Direct the OP to refund the advance payment as received by them on account of booking of the said residential plot to the Complainant i.e. Rs.23,62,500/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit, till date of actual payment as per details mentioned in the complaint.
2. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainants due to deficiency in service.
3. Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- towards cost of litigation……..”
Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein, numerous objections were taken by it, like since the complainants have not sought permission from this Commission, to file a joint complaint, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that the expression of interest shown by the complainants were 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. 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 jurisdiction of this Commission was also challenged. Jurisdiction of this Commission was further challenged, by stating that the , being a special statute took precedence over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act, 1986). It was pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation.
On merits, it was admitted that the plot, in question, was sold in favour of the complainants, in a project of the opposite party known as ‘Palm Garden’. Payments made by the complainants were not disputed. To say that there was lot of development in the project, 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 party on 25.01.2017. In view of above, act of the opposite party 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 party had violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (in short the 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 party is in possession of all the requisite permissions/clearances, in respect of the said project. Mistakes/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 party. It was stated that withdrawal from the purchase is malafide and it is open to the opposite party 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. 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 party for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. The opposite party is trying to complete the project, as early as possible. It was averred that time was not the essence of contract. It was stated that the complainants were defaulters in making payment towards price of the said plot. Buyer’s Agreement in respect of the plot, in question, will be executed on making remaining sale consideration by the complainants, within a period of 30 days. Offer of plot number has already been made to the complainants. Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite party, it was stated that the 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 the written version of the opposite party.
The 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.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the contesting parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that all the complaints, referred to above, are liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

There is no dispute that a plot was sold to the complainants in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite party, against sale consideration of Rs.48.75 lacs. An amount of Rs.14,62,500/- was received by the opposite party from the complainants, as booking amount, which was acknowledged vide receipt dated 16.06.2012 Annexure P-1. The payment made was 30% of the total sale consideration, for a plot measuring 250 square yards, in the project named ‘Palm Garden’. Thereafter, the complainants again made payment of Rs.9,00,000/-. There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainants had already paid an amount of Rs.23,62,500/-. There is nothing on record to show that by that time, before grant of exemption from the provisions of applicability of PAPRA, any permission was available with the opposite party, to sell the project.

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 Garden situated in mega housing project), it is not open to the project proponent like the opposite party to sell the project to general public without getting proper sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities. 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 connected cases) issued in favour of the opposite party, 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 party 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 party 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) ;”

However, in the present case, the project, in question, was launched in complete derogation of the above said provisions. No permission worth the name was available with the opposite party, to setup the said project. Amount accepted at the time of booking was more than 25%. 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 party 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 party violated the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on its part.
Similar controversy came up for consideration, qua this project owned by the opposite party, in the case of Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Consumer Complaint no.918 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2017 (alongwith six connected cases). Noting similar contentions, this Commission observed as under:-

“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.Dipinder Singh Patwalia, Sr. 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 committed by the opposite party, 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 Municipal Council Kharar Vs. A.P.J. Public School and another, 2015 (3) L.A.R. 62. 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, while 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 party. 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. The ratio of judgment in the case of Municpal Council Kharar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, an appeal was filed by the Municipal Council through Estate Officer (EO), without resolution having been passed by the Municipal Committee, authorizing the said EO to do so. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Committee and action of filing the appeal by the EO was ratified and authority was given to him to contest the said appeal.

In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that when notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption to the opposite party 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 party has committed some 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 the rejected, being 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 party.

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 party 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 party (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 Sr. Advocate, arguing on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party is 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 party and also contemplating a legal action. However, it appears that no such legal action was taken against the opposite party. It may be on account of connivance of the opposite party 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. This fact is clearly admitted on record. In the written statement filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that till date Agreement in respect of the plot, in question, has not been got executed. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for 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 party committed unfair trade practice and also was deficient in providing service. It was also so held by this Commission in Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, as under:-

“Furthermore, it is apparent on record that the Buyer’s Agreement was not presented for signing. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for 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 month. 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, or even till date, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service.

A plea was also taken by the opposite party, 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 party, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite party 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 party failed to convince this Commission, that it 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 party, in this regard, is rejected.

At time of arguments, it was vehemently contended by Sr. Advocate for the opposite party 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 and further it was deliberately done, because of rivalry existing between the political party in power and the Managing 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, 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, 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 party continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, stand rejected.

Further contention of Counsel for the opposite party that the complainants are investors, as such, they are not consumers is also devoid of merit. 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 para no.2 of their complaint have clearly stated that the plot, in question, was purchased by them for their personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite party has levelled allegations against the complainants, the onus lay upon it, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which it 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 party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is 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 possession of the plot, could not be given to the complainants. It was only stated that the opposite party is making efforts to deliver possession of the plot, in question. Even the photographs placed on record by the opposite party itself reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by them. The opposite party, 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 party. 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 (in the present case possession not offered by the opposite party, though claimed to be offered but no document in that regard has been placed on record) 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 party is 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 raised by Sr. Counsel for the opposite party that the complaint filed was beyond limitation deserves to be rejected. It is on record that first payment of Rs.14,62,500/- was made by the complainants, vide receipt dated 16.06.2012. As stated above, not even a single permission to launch the project was available with the opposite party at the relevant time. The complainants, as per demand raised, deposited further amount of Rs.9 lacs. Vide document Annexure P-2, they were intimated that CLU has been sanctioned for 103 acres of land and the plot number will be allotted in the month of December 2014. Even thereafter, possession of the plot was not offered. 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. In view of above, we can safely say that there was a continuing cause of action in favour of the complainants to file this complaint, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC).

Reliance placed by Sr. Advocate, on the judgment titled as State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (5) SCC 121 and Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K. Sood, 2006 (1) SCC 164, is not justified. Those are the cases, in which it was found as a matter of fact that cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant therein, more than 2 years ago before the complaint was filed. In the present case, it is a case of continuing cause of action as neither possession was offered to the complainants, nor refund of amount paid alongwith interest was made to them, till the time of filing this comploaint.

At the same time, once a specific objection has been taken by the opposite party to the effect that the complaint filed is beyond limitation, then in the same breath, it cannot take an objection that time was not the essence of contract, saying that the project was to be completed in 2018. As such, the objection taken to the effect that time was not the essence of contract, stands rejected, being taken up without any basis.

Further contention was raised by Sr. Advocate for the opposite party that in the face of provisions of the (in short the RERA), 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 party, 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 party gets itself registered as a builder 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, in selling the project by the opposite party without sanctions/approvals, before coming into existence of RERA. Reading of the provisions of Section 88 of RERA make 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 party. 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 with website www.mygov.in/group/ministry-housing-and-urban-poverty-alleviation. Under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), at Sr.nos. 85 and 86, it was observed as under:-

“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, 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 party(s).

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 party went in appeal bearing no.1436 of 2016 before the National Commission. The opposite party 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 party was directed to refund the principal amount paid by the complainant in that case. Above fact would mean that on merits, the opposite party has 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 Sr. Advocate appearing for the opposite party 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.14,62,500/- was accepted by the opposite party, receipt Annexure P-1 whereof was issued on 16.06.2012. Thereafter also, the amount was received by the opposite party and in all, it has received substantial amount of Rs.23,62,500/-. Above said contention raised by the opposite party, 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 party. 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 party was guilty of launching a project against mandate of law. In view of above, contention of Sr.Advocate for the opposite party that the complainants waived of their right to raise any objection because it was known to them that the project has still not been approved, however, they opted to purchase, is liable to be rejected.
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 party, for its 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 to be ordered by this Commission, alongwith interest on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of payments actually made by them.
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 its (opposite party) case, that it was ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date but the complainants wanted to rescind from the allotment of plot, 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 party, 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 by the opposite party, as such, no terms and conditions, whatsoever, were applicable to the complainants. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has no legs to stand 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-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainants, in the project of the opposite party. There is ample evidence on record, which proves that opposite party was 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 party, in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
To defeat the claim of the complainants, a plea was also taken by the opposite party that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.

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 placed on record, reveals that the same have been issued and received from/by Chandigarh Office of the opposite party. 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 party, in its written version, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

As far as the objection regarding permission to file joint complaint, by the complainants is concerned, it may be stated here that this Commission was satisfied that the complaint was signed by both the complainants, and admitted the case for regular hearing. An over-technical view should not be taken by the Fora. It may be stated here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation, primarily meant to protect the interests of the consumers. It is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, rather than declining relief on hyper-technicalities. When the technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, then to thwart the same. As such, the objection raised by the opposite party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.
For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:-

In consumer complaint bearing no.239 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.23,62,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 333 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.21,25,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 389 of 2017, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.27,00,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 434 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of actual deposits onwards i.e. from the date when the unit, in question, was endorsed in favour of the complainant.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 474 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.34,25,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 473 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 700 of 2017, the opposite party no.1 is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.17,80,000/- 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.25,000/- to the complainant.

Complaint against opposite parties no.2 and 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 699 of 2017, the opposite party no.1 is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.17,80,000/- 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.25,000/- to the complainant.

Complaint against opposite parties no.2 and 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 552 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.29,59,200/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 649 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

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

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, 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.22,000/- to the complainants.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 320 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.41,07,000/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 497 of 2017, the opposite party is 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.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 494 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 499 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 369 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 690 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.1.50 lacs, 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.652 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.41,10,000/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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. 651 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.41,10,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 463 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.43,81,720/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 435 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

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

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 559 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.33,75,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 557 of 2017, the opposite party is 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.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 558 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.27,40,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 493 of 2017, the opposite party is directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.30,06,250/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 504 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.27,66,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

In consumer complaint bearing no. 503 of 2017, the opposite parties jointly and severally are directed:-

To refund the amount Rs.26,50,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 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.

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) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards/endorsement if any, 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).
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.

26.03.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

Rg.

Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/463/2017

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Chopra, Adv.

26 Mar 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

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

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

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