District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.377/2023.
Date of Institution: 29.05.2023.
Date of Order: 15.11.2023.
1. Smt. Santosh Kumari W/o Shri Charanjeet, R/o House No. D-1234, Sector-49, Sainik Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Sh. Varun Kumar, S/o Shri Charanjeet, R/o House No. D-1234, Sector-49, Sainik Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director/M.D./Owner/Authorize Person(s) having office at:
#A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Deli – 110 055.
2. Sh. Amit Goel, Director/M.d./Owner/Chairman/Authorize Person(s) of M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Having office at: #A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
Also at: Plot No. 5, YMCA Chowk, NH-2, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana – 121005.
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Director/M.s./Owner/Chairman/Authorize Person(s) of M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Having office at: #A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
Also at: Plot No. 5, YMCA Chowk, NH-2, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana – 121005.
4. Sh. Vinod Kumar Kathuria, Director/M.D./Owner/Chairman/Authorize Person(s) of M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Having office at: #A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
Also at: Plot No. 5, YMCA Chowk, NH-2, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana – 121005.
5. Sh. Mahendra Pratap Singh, Director/M.d./Owner/Chairman/Share Holder/Authorize Person(s) of M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Having office at: #A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
Also at: Ajoining to the office of The Faridabad Ex-Sainik & Karamchari Housing Society ltd., Sector-49, Sainik Colony, NIT, Faridabad.
6. Sh. Vijay Pratap Singh, Director/M.D./Owner/Chairman/Share Holder/Authorize Person(s) of M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., having office at: #A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044.
Also at: Ajoining to the office of The Faridabad Ex-Sainik & Karamchari Housing Society ltd., Sector-49, Sainik Colony, NIT, Faridabad.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ravi Nagpal, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Neeraj K.Gupta, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 as proforma opposite parties.
Sh. C.S.Sharma, counsel for opposite parties Nos.5 & 6.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that being impressed by the assurances and facilities by opposite parties, complainant in the year 2008 booked/purchased office space area admeasuring (approx.) 400 sq . ft on ground floor, bearing unit/shop No. 18, in Project namely M/s. Piyush Mahendra metropolitan Mall” situated near Dussehra Ground, NIT, Faridabad and thereafter opposite parties issued provisional allotment letter dated 03.09.2010, At the time of booking/purchasing/allotment/agreement opposite parties assured the complainant that the necessary sanctioned building plans and permissions had been granted in respect of the above said project, by the concerned authorities. Opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 24.02.2011, in respect of office space area admeasuring 445.300 sq. ft. on ground floor, bearing unit/Shop NO. 18, in project namely “M/s. Piyush Mahendra Metropolitan Mall”, situated near Dussehra ground, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. Opposite parties entered into a Buyer’s Agreement dated 07.04.2011 with complainant in respect of office space area admeasuring 445.300 sq. ft. on ground floor, bearing unit/shop No. 18, in project namely M/s. Piyush Mahendra Metropolitan Mall situated near Dussehra Ground, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana for a net basic sale price of Rs.39,24,441/-. Till date complainant had paid an amount of Rs.40,81,472/- (including booking amount, EDC/IDC, service tax, VAT, additional charges etc.) to opposite parties on various dates as per the demands of the opposite parties, for which opposite parties had issued various separate receipts thereof and acknowledge the same. As per the clause 4(a) of the agreement opposite parties assured complainant to hand over the possession of the unit within 30 months, from the date of signing of Buyer’s Agreement with a extended period of 6 months, opposite parties was supposed to complete the project and handover the possession of the unit. The agreement was executed on 07.04.2011, as per the agreement opposite parties was supposed to handover the possession of the unit by 07.04.2014. Till today the project was delayed by 9years, and since then no possession had been offered by opposite parties till date. The opposite parties failed to give possession of the unit by 07.04.2014 as promised under the agreement due to which the complainant had been visiting regularly to builder office as well as project construction site to pursue the progress of project from month on month, however, opposite parties keep giving tentative dates for the handing over the possession of the project thus it was submitted that opposite parties failed to give any firm timelines for completion of the unit and handing over its possession and lastly complainant visited the office of opposite parties on dated 20.04.2023, but opposite parties did not satisfactorily gave any response to complainant and failed to give the possession of the unit. And even failed to return the hard earn money of the complainant hence the present complaint. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the amount of Rs.40,81,472/- alongiwth 24% p.a. interest from the respective dates of deposits and alongwith penalty.
b) pay the penalty/interest/delayed amount of 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period, alongwith interest @ 24%p.a.
c) restraining the opposite parties, their agents, assigns or any other person from selling or alienating one of the above said unit i.e office space area admeasuring 445,300 sq. ft. on ground floor, bearing unit/shop No. 18, in project namely “M/s. Piyush Mahendra metropolitan Mall” situated near Dussehra Ground, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana or any other unit in the same area or in any other new project, in the interest of justice.
d) pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
e) pay cost of the present proceedings.
2. Instead of filing of written statement of behalf of opposite parties Nos.1to 4, Shri Amit Goyal, Director/MD of Piyush Infrastructure alongwith Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 has made a statement that “We are ready to give the possession of the unit and is ready to execute the sale-deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant subject to completion of balance payment, as per agreement vide order dated 02.08.2023.
3. Opposite party No.5 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.5 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.5 was not the part of the alleged agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011 nor such agreement to sell was knowledge and notice of the opposite party No.5, hence the opposite party No. 5 was unnecessarily dragged into litigation only to harass and humiliate. The alleged agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011 was not signed by opposite party No.5 as a co-owner, nor signed the alleged agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011 as a witness, hence, the terms and conditions was not applicable upon opposite party No.5. As a matter of fact and evidence the opposite party No.5 had not signed the agreement to sell dated 07.0-4.2011, hence the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell was not applicable upon the opposite party No.5. Opposite party No.5 was not bound by any terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011. Opposite party No.5 had not received any amount form the complainant in any manner at any point of time, hence the opposite party No.5 had unnecessarily dragged into litigation by clever drafting by the complainant. As per order dated 26.04.2022 the complaint titled Santosh Kumari & Others Vs. M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. Withdrawn by the complainant on 26.4.2022 as the complaint was dismissed as withdraw and in the said complaint the opposite party No.5 Mahender Prtap Singh was not the opposite party as the opposite party No.5 was not concerned in any manner at any point of time with the complaint, hence the present complaint against opposite party No.5 was misuse of process of law only to harass of opposite party No.5. Opposite party No. 5 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.6 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.6 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party No.6 was not the owner and in possession and had no concern with any properties mentioned in the complaint situated at Faridabad or Delhi of the opposite party No.1, hence opposite party No.6 illegally dragged into present complaint litigation. Opposite party No.6 also filed an application for deleting the name of opposite party No.6 from the array of the opposite parties as the opposite party No.6 had no concern with M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. At any point of time and opposite party No.6 was not the owner, nor in possession in any share, neither director, MD, Chairman, share holder or authorized person,, hence the present complaint was misuse of process of law against the opposite party No.6. Alleged agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011 was not signed by the opposite party No.5 as a co-owner, nor signed the alleged agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011 as a witness, hence the terms and conditions was not applicable upon the opposite party No.6. Opposite party No.6 had not signed the agreement to sell dated 07.04.2011, hence the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell was not applicable upon the opposite party No.6.Opposite party No. 6 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. On 18.08.2023 Shri Neeraj K. Gupta, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 appeared and orally stated that I only want to represent opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 not for opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 vide order dated 18.08.2023.
6. Shri Ravi Nagpal, counsel for the Complainant has made a statement that I want to make opposite parties Nos.3 & 4 as proforma opposite parties vide order dated 7.11.2023.
7. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Charanjeet, Ex.C-1 – Provisional allotment letter, Ex.C-2 – allotment letter dated 24.02.2011,, Ex.C-3 – Buyer’s agreement,, Ex.C-4 (colly) – receipts, Ex.C-5 – Collaboration Agreement (Colly)
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.5 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party NO.5 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Vivek Pratap Singh son of Mahender Pratap Singh resident of House No. 2166, Sainik Colony, Sector-49, Faridabad.
As per evidence of opposite party No.6, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Vijay Pratap Singh son of Shri Mahender Pratap Singh resident of House No. 2166, Sainik Colony, Sector-49, Faridabad.
9. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant being senior citizen with the prayer to a) refund the amount of Rs.40,81,472/- alongiwth 24% p.a. interest from the respective dates of deposits and alongwith penalty. b)pay the penalty/interest/delayed amount of 10/- per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period, alongwith interest @ 24%p.a. c) restraining the opposite parties, their agents, assigns or any other person from selling or alienating one of the above said unit i.e office space area admeasuring 445,300 sq. ft. on ground floor, bearing unit/shop No. 18, in project namely “M/s. Piyush Mahendra metropolitan Mall” situated near Dussehra Ground, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana or any other unit in the same area or in any other new project, in the interest of justice. d) pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . e) pay cost of the present proceedings.
10. In this case, the complainant has booked office space area admeasuring (approx.) 400 sq. ft. on ground floor, bearing Unit/Shop No. 18 for his livelihood after the retirement from the department. Unit/Shop No. 18 in Project namely M/s. Piyush Mahendera Metropolitan Mall situated near Dhssehra Ground, NIT, Faridabad and thereafter opposite parties issued provisional allotment letter dated 03.09.2010 vide Ex.C-1. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.40,81,472/- from the earning of his whole life. As per allotment letter vide Ex.C-2, allotment of Shop /unit bearing Shop No.18 admeasuring 445.300 sq. ft., in their project “Piyush Mahender Metropolitan Mall was allotted to him on 25.02.2011. The Buyer’s Agreement was made to the complainant on 07.04.2011 vide Ex.C-3 and he has waited for more than 12 years to see the project to be completed and the offer of possession of flat was not given to him. Till date neither the possession of the shop/unit nor refund the amount has been given to the complainant.
11. Shri Amit Goyal, Director/MD of Piyush Infrastructure alongwith Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 4 has made a statement that “We are ready to give the possession of the unit and is ready to execute the sale-deed/conveyance deed in favour of the complainant subject to completion of balance payment, as per agreement vide order dated 02.08.2023.
12. Opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 appeared before this
Commission and also stated that there is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties Nos.5 & 6. As per Collaboration agreement vide Ex.C-5 (colly) between the Mahender Partap Singh and Dilbag Singh sons of late Shri Net Ram and M/s. Piyush Infrastructure India (P) Ltd. and minutes of the meeting which was held on 31st March 2010 in which it has stated that “The Chairman informed the Board that an agreement for Second Amendment of collaboration Agreement of dated07.12.2006 entered between Shri Mahender Pratap Singh and Shri Dilbag Singh, s/o late Shri Net Ram, r/o Sainik Colony, Sector-49, Faridabad, Haryana and the Company will be executed and there will be same authorized person to execute the agreement for amendment on behalf of the Company. The Board discussed the matter and accordingly, the following resolution was passed unanimously:
“RESOLVED THAT Shri Puneet Goyal, Director of the Company, be and is hereby authorized to enter into agreement for Second Amendment of Collaboration Agreement of dated 07.12.2006, entered between Shri Mahender Pratap Singh and Shri Dilbag Singh S/o Late Shri Net Ram, r/o Sanik Colony, Sector-49, Faridabad, Haryana and the Company, on terms and conditions as stipulate din the draft copy of Second Amendment of Collaboration agreement, on behalf of the company.”
Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 has argued that the company has taken the money. Opposite parties Nos.5 & 6 are only the owners of the land . Collaboration agreement between the Mahender Partap Singh and Dilbag Singh and Piyush Infrastructure India (P) Ltd. vide Ex.C5 (colly) and to rebut the arguments , the counsel for the complainant argued at length and stated at Bar that as per the physical possession of the Unit/Shop No. 18 is not on the Ground Floor in project namely “M/s. Piyush Mahendera metropolitan Mall. It is a total hall which is owned by Shri Mahender Partap Singh And there are lots of bouncers in the hall. Nobody can enter into the unit/shop No. 18 without the permission of Shri Mahender Pratap. The counsel for the complainant requested to refund the paid amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India.
The counsel for the complainant has placed on record authority in case titled Ireo Grace Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Others Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019 decided on 11.01.2021 in Fortune Infrastructure & Anr. Vs. Trevor D’Lima & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him The complainant had been waiting for completion of the project in which allotted unit is located for more than 8 years. He cannot be asked to wait indefinitely to seek possession of his dream house. So, in such a situation, he is held entitled to the refund of the amount deposited with the opposite parties besides interest and compensation.
13. Keeping in view of the above discussions, the Commission is of the opinion that no doubt the complainant has paid the huge money to the opposite parties and the complainant has waited for the possession of the unit/shop No. 18 from 2011 and he has not received anything from the opposite parties. Opposite parties are enjoying the Mall without paying anything and the Mall is working smoothly without giving possession to the complainant.. Hence the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties, jointly & severally, are directed to refund the deposited amount to the complainant with interest @9% p.a from the respective date of deposits till its realization. Arguments of the counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 5 & 6 are not relevant because they are the directors of the company and they are liable for the same. The opposite parties, jointly & severally, are also directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony
and harassment alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 15.11.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
