Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/336/2020

Pooja Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parag Infratech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Kathuria

09 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	336/2020
Date of Institution	:	05.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	09.10.2023

 

                     

            

Pooja Soni w/o M.P.Soni r/o # 588, GBM Apartments, Kurali Road, Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Parag Infratech Pvt. Ltd. having its Corporate Office at H.No.1309, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh -160015 through its Director Sh.Randhir Sood (Also at : M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Having its Office at SCO 17-18-19, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Director Sh.Randhir Sood).

2. Sh.Randhir Sood, Director of M/s Parag Infratech Pvt. Ltd. having its office at H.No.1309, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 

3. Sh.Vinod Kumar Maurya, Director of M/s Parag Infratech Pvt. Ltd. having its office at H.No.1309, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

 

4. Sh.Harmandeep Singh, Director of M/s Parag Infratech Pvt. Ltd. having its office at H.No.1309, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Gorav Kathuria, Counsel for the complainant OPs No.1, 3 & 4 exparte. None for OP No.2 (Defence struck off).

   

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

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that in the year 2012, she booked a plot measuring 107.5 sq. yards bearing No.59 in the project of the OPs developed by the OPs under the name and style of PARAGCITY by paying the total consideration of Rs.6,98,750/.  Besides this, she also paid Rs.3,45,000/- as registration of the sale deed (Annexure C-1)  and Rs.40,000-Rs.50,000/- were spent on stamps etc. Subsequently, the complainant waited for the completion of the project and arranged many personal meetings with the OPs and even wrote a letter dated 15.06.2015, followed by reminder dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure C-3), but they were postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. On 29.12.2018, the husband of the complainant along with other plot holders visited the site and they were surprised to see that there was no development at the site except grasses/bushes. The complainant also wrote letter dated 30.12.2018 (Annexure C-5) to the OPs to know whether they were the owners of the land or not but to no effect. Later on, it came to the notice of the complainant that no license was issued by the GMADA to the OP for the development of the colony/project. After waiting for 7 years, the complainant made a complaint dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure C-8) to the SSP, Mohali against the OPs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the deposited amount with interest, rental amount with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     Despite due service through publication, OPs No.1, 3 & 4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.05.2022.
3.     Since OP No.2 failed to file the reply and evidence within the stipulated period of 45 days and as such its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 16.08.2022 as per the principle of law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 86.
4.     The complainant filed documents in support of the case.
5.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record
6.     In exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint along with the supporting documents.  The complainant has specifically deposed in the affidavit that she booked the plot in question by paying the sale consideration of Rs.6,98,750/- to the OPs in their project known as PARAGCITY and paid Rs.3,45,000/- towards the registration of the sale deed. The complainant has also placed on record the letters/mails exchanged with the OPs as mentioned n the complaint.  Annexure C-7 is the letter dated 22.04.2019 issued by the GMADA from which it is clear that no license has been granted to the OPs for development of the project/colony.  In our view, the act of the OPs to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not completing the project as promised certainly proves deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.
7.     The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:-

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

 

8.           Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018, held that non delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of the builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of the amount paid. The above view is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442.
9.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs who are not in a position to develop the project have no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant.   A buyer to have a comfortable life and having paid his/her hard earned money to have a house, are not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession. Thus, the complainant was right in seeking the refund of the amount paid to the OPs.
10.     The OPs chose not to appear before this Commission.  Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the opposite parties, the version of the complainant, supported by the duly sworn affidavit, must prevail.  Failure on the part of the opposite parties to honour their commitments, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be allowed. 
11.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with following directions to the OPs to:-

1.   refund Rs.6,98,750/- + Rs.3,45,000/- as mentioned above to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the sale deed i.e. 23.10.2012 till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.
2.   On receipt of the awarded amount, the complainant will cooperate and sign all the requisite papers so required by the OPs for getting the sale deed cancelled and to transfer the same in the name of the OPs.

           The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
13.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 09/10/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (S.K.SARDANA) MEMBER