Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/212/2016

Kamal Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramesh Chander Khurana, Authorized Representative

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Chand Khurana S/o Sh. S. L. Khurana, allottee and resident of 449-M, New Generation Apartment, Ambala Kalka Road, Dakholi, Zirakpur-160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, appellant in person.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                 Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates           for the respondent.

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

Ramesh Chander Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #425-G, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:         Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized  representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

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

Kamal Arora, Allottee and Resident of #432-H, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:      Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

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

Bharat Bhushan Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #249-M, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:      Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

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

1. Sheela Jinsi w/o Late Sh.M.K. Jinsi, r/o #308, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.
2. Anil Jinsi s/o Late Sh.M.K. Jinsi, r/o #308, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:      Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

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

Veena Kapoor w/o Sh. Kamal Kishore Kapoor, Allottee and Resident of #248-M, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:      Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

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

1. Ikbal Krishan Kapoor s/o Late Sh. Pran Nath Kapoor R/o Flat No.423, Block-F, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.
2. Vivek Kapoor (Legal heir and s/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor), r/o 12, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta-71.
3. Manisha (Legal heir and d/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor) r/o H.No.264, Sector 7, Panchkula.

……Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Argued by:      Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

Appeals under Section 27A 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 the aforesaid seven appeals. All these appeals have been filed against an order dated 21.06.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), dismissing execution applications filed by all the appellants mentioned above, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act), to execute order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Forum, allowing their complaint, which was modified by this Commission and further by the National Commission, in the orders dated 10.12.2013 and 20.11.2014 passed therein, respectively. 

2.         Besides as above, this order will also dispose of an appeal bearing no.50 of 2016, filed by M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited and another Vs. Smt.Prem Lata and another i.e. respondent in the above said seven appeals.
3.         Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, on 07.10.2016, it was agreed by Counsel for the parties, that in view of above, these appeals can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
4.         Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited. (He is also appearing as authorized representative on behalf of other appellants/complainants, in all the appeals). The appellant/complainant purchased a built-up flat from the respondent/builder/opposite party no.1, vide Agreement dated 22.10.2003. As per admitted facts on record, possession of the flat was delivered to him in the month of December 2004. He occupied the flat in the month of January 2005. In the year 2008, he filed a consumer complaint, before the Forum, alleging deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practice, on the part of opposite party no.1, in making false promises. Likewise, some other buyers also filed complaint(s) and those seven complaints were dismissed by the Forum on 18.12.2008, finding no deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite party no.1. Against that order, all the complainants came in appeal before this Commission, which were allowed vide order dated 27.04.2011. Order dated 18.12.2008 was set aside and the complaints were remitted to the Forum to decide those complaints afresh. After remand of the cases, the Punjab Government and E.O./Nagar Council, Zirakpur, opposite parties no.2 and 3 respectively, were also impleaded as necessary parties in the pending complaints. Their replies were also sought to the averments made by the complainants, in their complaints. On getting detailed evidence, all the complaints were allowed vide order dated 10.07.2013, by the Forum. It was found as a matter of fact that lay out plan/amended scheme of 100% Group Housing had not been got approved from the competent authority and it was wrongly projected by opposite party no.1, when project was advertised in the year 2003. It was also noticed that the brochure showed magnificent entrance from National Highway 22 to the complex, however, at the spot, entrance gate stood constructed deep inside the complex and width of the road has also been decreased. It was treated as an unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party no.1. It was found as a matter of fact that many buyers have got executed sale deeds and it is the complainant(s), who is not interested in getting the sale/conveyance deed executed, until amended scheme is sanctioned by the competent authority. Qua other allegations, no deficiency was found against opposite party no.1. Without obtaining occupation and completion certificates, possession was offered to the complainant on 26.12.2004. Offer so made, was also taken as deficiency in providing service. Qua insufficient covered parking space, it was stated that the same has been provided as per the Agreement and there was no deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite party no.1, in that regard.
5.         Contention of the complainant that as per promise made, it was incumbent on the part of opposite party no.1 to provide a community hall in 100% Group Housing project did not find favour with the Forum , in the order dated 10.07.2013. Taking note of facts on record, in the concluding para no.33 of that order it was observed as under:-

“For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that OP No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in project to the complainant and others that Phase-III of New Generation Apartments was a Punjab Government Approved Project knowing well that the amended layout scheme is yet to be approved by the competent authority i.e. Government of Punjab; defacing the magnificent entrance from NH-22 to the complex; non supply of the occupation and completion certificate of the apartment to the complainant”

6.         Thereafter following relief was granted by the Forum, vide order dated 10.07.2013, in favour of the complainant:-

“For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed :-

i)     To make payment of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 

ii)    OP No.1 shall get executed the sale deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, for which, the stamp registration and other incidental charges would be borne by the complainant. If the complainant refuses to get the sale deed executed and registered, he would be doing so at his own risk and responsibility.

iii)    OP No.1 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

iv)     OP No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within the stipulated period, as directed above, failing which, OP No.1 would be liable to pay the double of the compensation amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.”    

                It was further said that if opposite party no.1 failed to make compliance within the stipulated period, as referred to above, it shall be liable to pay compensation amount alongwith interest.

7.         All the complainants remained satisfied with the order passed. Opposite party no.1 came in appeal bearing no.353 of 2013, before this Commission. The appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 10.12.2013. Order dated 10.07.2013, passed by the Forum was modified in the following manner

“i.   To pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, as  compensation, on account of mental agony, and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice by it (Opposite Party No.1), instead of Rs.2.50 lacs, awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

ii.    To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

iii.        To execute sale deed/conveyance deed, and get the same registered, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates, on payment of stamp duty, registration fee, and other incidental charges, by respondent no.1/complainant.

iv.   To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.

v.    The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Party No.1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.

vi.         In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 40 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.

vii.   Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.”

8.         It is necessary to mention here that when above appeal bearing no.353 of 2013 was filed by opposite party no.1 in the year 2013, under order passed by this Commission, it had deposited an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in the Forum and also Rs.25,000/- with this Commission, in (CLTD) account, as per the report made by the office and the said amount is still lying there, in the shape of fixed deposit. Against order dated 10.12.2013 passed by this Commission, opposite party no.1 went in Revision-Petition (08 connected) before the National Commission, which were dismissed with costs, vide order dated 20.11.2014. Paragraph nos.15,20 and 21 of the said order read thus:-

“15. The deficiency on the part of the OPs already stands proved.  The  flats  were given  to the  complainants  in December, 2004.  There is  an  inordinate  delay in  executing  the  sale deeds.  Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it  is  also justice circumvented, justice mocked  and  the  system  of  justice  undermined.  The  period of ten years’  time is not  a small  time.  It  is  also  apparent that the promises made in the advertisement do not match with the construction.  It is difficult to fathom why the site plan was amended and that too, without  the  consent  of  the allottees. This is the arbitrary  and  arrogant  action on the part of the OP-1.  The purpose of Law is to prevent  the  strong  always having their way.

 16 to 19 ……….

20.    Keeping  in view  all  the facts and circumstances, we dismiss the petitioners’  revision  petitions  subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- each,   for further  harassment,  mental  agony,   disappointment, anger and wastage of time.  The petitioners are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each  of  the  complainants,  within  45 days of the receipt of the copy  of  this  order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.  The order  of  the  State  Commission also be complied with.  The entire order, except clause (ii), (iii) & (v), be strictly complied with.

21.    It is also made clear that the allottees are entitled to all the facilities mentioned in the agreement, e.g., agreement entered into with Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana dated 22.10.2003 and the advertisement, placed on the record as Ex.CD-1 and the brochure,  placed  on the record.  All  these  facilities/amenities   become  part of this  decree.  The  petitioners  are given time to make arrangements for all these facilities/civil amenities, including Community Centre, Commercial  Complex/ Market, Park, reasonable Car Parking, Entrance Gate,  etc., as stated in the above said documents, within a period of six months’ from today, otherwise, it will form part of the decree and the same shall stand executable,  before the executing court, i.e., the District Forum.  If the above said works are  not  accomplished, within  a period of six months’, it will carry Rs.10,000/- as penalty per month, till it is accomplished.”

9.         It was noticed that deficiency in providing service on the part of opposite party no.1 is proved on record. On taking a serious note, when dismissing the Revision-Petitions aforesaid, in each case, to the complainants, compensation of an amount of Rs.1 lac was awarded. It is necessary to mention here that the said amount alongwith interest, stood paid by opposite party no.1 to the complainants, in all the cases.
10.         To execute order passed by the Forum on 10.07.2013; modified by this Commission vide order dated 10.12.2013, the complainant on 14.03.2014, filed execution application before the Forum under Section 27 of the Act, to execute above orders. During pendency of that application, in terms of order passed by the National Commission, on 20.11.2014, an application was filed on 05.06.2015 to enforce execution of the order passed by the National Commission on the said date. The parties also filed applications to take action against each other for making misstatements.
11.         The parties led evidence in the proceedings before the Forum.
12.         Vide order dated 21.06.2016, execution applications filed by the complainants were dismissed. Other applications on record were disposed of, in terms of reasoning given in that order.  It was found as a matter of fact that opposite party no.1 was always ready and willing to comply with the orders passed by the Consumer Foras at different stages, but it was the complainants, who were not ready to comply with the directions given by the National Commission.
13.         Hence these appeals under Section 27-A of the Act, against order dated 21.06.2016.
14.         Opposite party no.1 has also filed an appeal bearing No.50 of 2016 against the order dated 30.12.2015, passed by the Forum, in execution application no.41 of 2014. Vide that order, execution application filed under Section 27 of the Act titled as Smt.Prem Lata and another Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited and another, was disposed off, as partly satisfied. The complainants were held entitled to release of an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- lying deposited with the Forum, under order dated 10.10.2013.

                In the said appeal, it is primary contention of the appellants that Smt.Prem Lata had already sold the flat to someone else in the year 2012, as such, she ceases to be a consumer and complaint filed by her would not be maintainable. To reject her claim, reliance has been placed upon observations made by the National Commission in its order dated 20.11.2014. Facts recorded therein read thus:-

“It was also  brought  to  our  notice  that  as  a matter of fact, Smt. Prem Lata, the complainant  has  transferred the apartment to  some third-party and the sale deed  was  executed  in  the  name  of transferee.  It, therefore, means that Smt. Prem Lata has suppressed the facts.  She has not come to the Court with clean hands.  She  has  been wasting  our  time for the reasons best known to her.”

15.         We have heard Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, appellant in person and also on behalf of other appellants and Counsel for opposite party(s), in all the appeals. Arguments were raised by the parties, in the mode and manner, raised before the Forum. All the issues taken up before the Forum have been reiterated again by the parties, before this Commission.
16.         It is apparent on record that vide order dated 10.07.2013, the Forum found it as a matter of fact that opposite party no.1 was deficient in providing service and was also guilty of adopting unfair trade practice. To compensate the complainant, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was granted by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered. Opposite party no.1 was directed to execute sale deed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order, on payment of stamp duty/registration charges and incidental charges by the complainant.  Opposite party no.1 was further directed to furnish completion and occupation certificates to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order. In case, order was not complied within the stipulated period, the amount awarded was to entail penal interest. In appeal filed against order dated 10.07.2013, this Commission vide order dated 10.12.2013, reduced compensation from Rs.2.50 lacs to Rs.1.50 lacs. Opposite party no.1 was directed to obtain occupation and completion certificates, within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order. Further directions were issued to execute sale/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within a period of 2 months, on payment of stamp duty charges etc. by him. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- already awarded in favour of the complainant were kept intact. Further, relief granted by the Forum in para no.35 of the order dated 10.07.2013 was set aside. It was also stated that if the amount awarded is not paid within the stipulated period, it was to entail penal interest. Opposite party no.1 went in Revision-Petition bearing No.1601 of 2014 (08 connected), which were dismissed by the National Commission, vide order dated 20.11.2014. In each Revision-Petition, an amount of Rs.1 lac was awarded by way of compensation to all the complainants. Admittedly, the said amount stood paid to all the complainants. It was further observed that amount of compensation awarded by this Commission @Rs.1.50 lacs, vide order dated 10.12.2013, in favour of each complainant, is on the lower side. However, no interference was made, as no appeal was filed against that order by the complainants. It was further specifically stated by the National Commission in paragraph no.20 of order dated 20.11.2014, that the entire order of the State Commission be complied with, except Clauses (ii), (iii) and (v). It is clear from the order passed by the National Commission that the relief granted under Clauses (ii), (iii) and (v) aforesaid, was not set aside by the National Commission. It was only said that strict compliance may not be insisted qua those conditions imposed.  Vide Clauses (ii) and (iii) it was directed to opposite party no.1 by this Commission, to get occupation and completion certificates within the specified period and to execute sale/conveyance deed within a specified period. Reading of the orders passed by the National Commission and also this Commission, in unison, would mean that strict compliance qua time period be not insisted. However, there is nothing on record to say that occupation and completion certificates were not to be obtained, before executing sale/ conveyance deed in favour of the complainant. Relaxation appears to have been given only qua time period fixed to do the needful. In paragraph no.15 of the order dated 20.11.2014, it is specifically stated by the National Commission that deficiency in providing service, in not getting the sale deed executed, for the period of 10 years is proved on record.
17.         After analysis of the orders, as mentioned above, we have to look into the findings given by the Forum in its order dated 21.06.2016 vis-a-vis the arguments raised by the parties concerned. The complainant has argued on the points and racked up all those deficiencies, which he had agitated, when originally the complaint was filed before the Forum. By noting as above, opposite party no.1 raised preliminary objection that execution application was not maintainable, as Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree under execution. The Forum rightly held so. As per law, Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree under execution. By placing reliance upon the observations made by the National Commission in para no.21 of order dated 20.11.2014, it was agitated by the complainant that in terms of advertisements and brochure issued  qua the project, in question, and also in terms of Agreement to sell, it was incumbent for opposite party no.1 to provide community centre, commercial complex, reasonable car parking, entrance gate etc. and then work was to be furnished within six months from the date of passing of that order.

                We feel that the said plea has rightly been rejected by the Forum in the order under challenge. We have also gone through the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell, entered into between the parties on 22.10.2003; the advertisements issued and brochure published to sell the project i.e. Annexures CD-1 and CD-2 respectively, and are satisfied that no such promise to construct community centre etc. was made by opposite party no.1. It was also rightly so said by the Forum in para no.25 of its order dated 10.07.2013. The view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified.

18.         It was further contended by Counsel for the complainant that in terms of building plans applicable to the 100% Group Housing Society, less area has been granted towards covered car parking. Earlier also, this plea of the complainant was rejected by the Forum vide order dated 10.07.2013 and it was said that the complainant was not entitled to get any additional area towards car parking, as claimed. In the order under challenge, it is also rightly so said by the Forum that no additional area can be given towards covered car parking to the complainant, in terms of building byelaws approved in the year 2007. The view taken by the Forum, in this regard, also needs no interference.
19.         Prayer of the complainant to issue directions to opposite party no.1 to get conveyance deed executed has been rejected by making reference to the observations made by the National Commission in para no.13 of its order dated 20.11.2014. In that paragraph, it was said that the complainant will approach opposite party no.1 within one month from the date of receipt of that order (20.11.2014), to get sale deed registered in favour of the complainant on payment of stamp duty, registration charges, incidental charges etc. The complainant was directed to give a notice to opposite party no.1 stating that he would be depositing all the above said charges and let the sale deed be executed within seven days. In case of any default on the part of opposite party no.1, it was to be burdened with costs. It was noted by the Forum that it was the complainant, who was to approach opposite party no.1 for execution of the sale deed but as he has failed to do so, prayer to issue directions to executed sale deed cannot be issued.

                We are not satisfied with the observation made by the Forum, in view of opinion expressed by us, in earlier part of this order. When reading directions, issued by the National Commission and this Commission vide orders dated 20.11.2014 and 10.12.2013 respectively, we have specifically stated that qua directions given in Clauses (ii) and (iii) referred to above, relaxation was given only qua strict adherence to the time schedule. Those directions were not set aside. It is not open to opposite party no.1 to say that in the absence of occupation and completion certificates and approval of layout plan, it was incumbent for the complainant to accept execution of sale deed in respect of the flat, in question, on payment of necessary charges. It has come on record that formal approval of the amended layout plan was granted by the competent authority on 17.09.2015. Occupation certificate in respect of the flat, in question, was granted only on 18.12.2015. Whether, in the absence of those permissions, it was must for the complainant to get sale deed executed will not be a correct interpretation of the view taken by this Commission and the National Commission. During pendency of execution application, taking note of absence of those documents, the Forum vide order dated 08.05.2015, in execution application no.30 of 2014 and after looking into the directions issued by this Commission and also the National Commission, observed as under:-

“As far as question of execution of sale deed in favour of complainant is concerned, though it is stated by the learned counsel for OP that OP is ready to execute the sale deed, yet it is pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, has specifically directed OP No.1 to obtain completion and occupation certificates from the competent authority within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and to execute sale deed/conveyance deed and get the same registered in favour of complainant within two months from the date of receipt of completion and occupation certificates on payment of stamp duty, registration fee and other incidental charges by the complainant. This part of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission has not been modified by the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition decided on 20.11.2014. The OP No.1 has neither produced the completion and occupation certificates alongwith its reply nor filed any affidavit to this effect that the same have been obtained. Since the sale deed/conveyance deed was to executed after receipt of the completion/occupation certificate, therefore, it is essential to ascertain whether completion and occupation certificates from competent authority have been obtained by OP No.1 or not. Accordingly, OP No.1 is directed to appear before this Forum on 29.05.2015 through its MD/Director & authorized signatory and produce the copies of the completion and occupation certificates obtained from the competent authority and to file a sworn affidavit that the same have been obtained from the competent authority. We feel that only thereafter further action for execution of the sale deed/conveyance can be effected.”

20.         Order dated 08.05.2015 was challenged in Revision Petition by opposite party no.1, which was dismissed being not maintainable by this Commission, vide order dated 26.05.2015. The said order has attained finality. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed by opposite party no.1, giving information qua ex-post facto sanction of amended layout plan and grant of occupation certificate, as referred to, in earlier part of this order.  There is nothing on record to suggest that qua grant of ex-post facto approval to the amended layout plan and grant of occupation and completion certificates, any intimation was given to the complainant before filing affidavit dated 05.06.2015, in this Commission, in terms of order dated 08.05.2015. Under these circumstances, we can safely say that after 05.06.2015, it was required on the part of the complainant to get executed the sale deed on payment of requisite charges, as mentioned above. The National Commission has clearly stated that in the absence of occupation and completion certificates, in not registering the sale deed for a period of ten years, amounted to deficiency in providing service, on the part of opposite party no.1. We cannot dilute the said observation made, especially noting that those documents were not available with opposite party no.1, even when the order was passed by the National Commission on 20.11.2014 (though came into its possession thereafter, as mentioned above). Under such circumstances, it was necessary for the Forum to direct opposite party no.1 to get sale deed registered on payment of necessary charges by the complainant, within the specified period. By not doing so, an error has been committed.
21.         Accordingly, to that extent order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Forum stands modified. Directions are issued to opposite party no.1 to execute the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, within the time frame and manner, referred to hereinafter, on complainants’ depositing the stamp duty and other incidental charges with the Authorities concerned. The complainant will give notice of three weeks to opposite party no.1 to say that he has made the necessary arrangements and let the sale deed be executed on any given date. Upon receipt of notice, opposite party no.1 will intimate the complainant the proposed date, on which, sale deed will be executed. The needful shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of notice sent by the appellant/complainant. If opposite party no.1 failed to comply with the directions issued, it shall further be burdened with cost of Rs.1 lac.
22.         It is correct that the Forum vide order dated 10.07.2013 has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2.50 lacs in favour of the complainant and vide order dated 10.12.2013, this Commission reduced the same to Rs.1.50 lacs. The National Commission in its order dated 20.11.2014 has categorically stated that compensation awarded is on the lower side. However, no interference was made, as no appeal was filed by the complainant against the order of this Commission. It is proved on record that even by the time, when order was passed by the Forum, on 08.05.2015, occupation and completion certificate were  not available with opposite party no.1.

                In view of above, to settle the equities and to put an end to the litigation, it is felt necessary that for inaction on the part of opposite party no.1, it be burdened with cost, which amount can be paid to the complainants by way of compensation, for suffering  mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in providing service by the respondents/opposite parties, as referred to in earlier part of this order.

23.         An application bearing no.184 of 2016 was also filed by M/s New Generation Estate Private Limited, to place on record,  the documents namely ex-post facto notification dated 04.09.2015 Annexure A-10 and occupation and completion certificates Annexure A-11, in respect of the project, in question. This application has become infructuous, as these documents have already been taken into account, in this order. The application is disposed of, accordingly.
24.         Another application bearing no.106 of 2016 was filed by M/s New Generation Estate Private Limited with a prayer to place on record extract of the entries from the register of Sh.Rakesh Sharma, Stamp Vendor, Derabassi, Annexure A-8 alongwith translation of extract entry no.7542 dated 29.03.2016 Annexure A-9. It is the case that Agreement dated 27.12.2012 is a forged document. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for this Commission, to deal with the plea taken in execution proceedings. As such, this application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
25.         In so far as appeal bearing no.50 of 2016 filed by M/s New Generation Estate Private Limited, is concerned, in that case the appellant has challenged the order dated 30.12.2015, by which the Forum disposed of execution application filed by the complainants/respondents. It was only ordered that in terms of the orders passed in earlier boot of litigation between the parties, by the Forum, this Commission and the National Commission, amount granted  towards compensation to the complainants and lying deposited with this Commission be withdrawn by them. Other contentions raised, qua providing of facilities of community hall etc. commercial centre were rejected by noting that the flat already stood transferred by the complainants/respondents to somebody else.

                It is contended by Counsel for the appellant that a fraud was committed by the respondents/complainants, in not disclosing  above fact of sale during pendency of their complaint in earlier litigation. Be that as it may, the said fact was brought to the notice of the National Commission and the National Commission after noting it, did not interfere in the order passed by this Commission, while passing order dated 20.11.2014. Only the conduct of the respondents/complainants was reprimanded by the National Commission. The decree passed in their favour has become final. Order passed by this Commission on 10.12.2013, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1.50 lacs had attained finality. In execution proceedings, on the basis of documents, upon which, now attempt has been made to place reliance by moving an application, no relief can be granted to the appellant. The order passed by the Forum does not affect any substantial right of the appellant. It is also necessary to mention here that vide order dated 16.07.2013, the Forum granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, in favour of the complainants. However, vide order dated 10.12.2013, the said amount was reduced to Rs.1.50 lacs by this Commission. That order was upheld by the National Commission on 20.11.2014, dismissing appeals filed by the appellant, with costs. The cost amount stood paid. Issue regarding committing fraud, by not disclosing fact of executing an Agreement of Sale cannot be reopened in execution proceedings. It is on record that against the order passed by the National Commission, the appellants went in Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein they remained unsuccessful. As such, appeal bearing no.50 of 2016, is dismissed with no order as to cost. 

                In view of above, all the seven appeals filed by the appellants/complainants are partly allowed to the extent, as referred to above, in earlier part of this order. The appellants/complainants are held entitled to get consolidated amount of Rs.1.50 lacs, as referred to in para no.22. Let the said amount be paid to them, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it will start getting interest @9% p.a., till the final payment is made. It is also made clear that in terms of observations made in para no.21, if respondents/opposite parties failed to execute the sale deed, as referred to in earlier part of this order, the opposite parties shall be burdened  with additional cost of Rs.1 lac.  

26.         All the appeals aforesaid and the applications referred to above, stood disposed of accordingly.
27.         Certified copies of this order, be placed on all the connected files.
28.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
29.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

23.11.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. M/s New Generation Real Estate Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director Sh.R.M. Singla. 
2. Smt.Indira Singla wife of Sh.R.M. Singla C/o M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

              ....Appellants/opposite parties

Versus

1. Smt.Prem Lata wife of Shri Vijay Kumar resident of House No.11, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.
2. Sh.Vikas son of Shri Vijay Kumar resident of House No.11, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.

…..Respondents/complainants

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates for the appellants.

                Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of respondents.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been dismissed with no order as to costs.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

        Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Chander Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #425-G, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized  representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Kamal Arora, Allottee and Resident of #432-H, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of   the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Bharat Bhushan Bawa s/o B.R. Bawa, Allottee and Resident of #249-M, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Sheela Jinsi w/o Late Sh.M.K. Jinsi, r/o #308, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.
2. Anil Jinsi s/o Late Sh.M.K. Jinsi, r/o #308, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Veena Kapoor w/o Sh. Kamal Kishore Kapoor, Allottee and Resident of #248-M, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala - Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Ikbal Krishan Kapoor s/o Late Sh. Pran Nath Kapoor R/o Flat No.423, Block-F, New Generation  Apartments, Ambala Kalka Road, Dhakoli (Zirakpur) -160104.
2. Vivek Kapoor (Legal heir and s/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor), r/o 12, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta-71.
3. Manisha (Legal heir and d/o complainant No.2 i.e. Veena Kapoor) r/o H.No.264, Sector 7, Panchkula.

……Appellants/complainants

V e r s u s

M/s New Generation Real Estate Private Limited, SCO 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through 

(i) The Managing Director

(ii) R.M. Singla, Director

              ....Respondent/opposite party

Appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Ramesh Chander Khurana, authorized representative of the appellant.

                Sh.Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate alongwith                               Ms.Nitika Sharma and Sh.Sukhbeer Singh, Advocates                  for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, titled as Ramesh Chander Khurana Vs. M/s New Generation Real Estate Pvt. Limited, this appeal has been partly accepted, as per the directions given in the main order.

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
3.         Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in appeal bearing no.210 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                         Sd/-

Rg.