Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/7/2020

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sahara India Pariwar - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Atul Goyal & Arjun Kundra

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	7/2020
Date of Institution	:	06.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	30.11.2021

 

                                       

                       

 

 

Amarjit Singh son of S.Makhan Singh r/o House No.2635, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

M/s Sahara India Pariwar (City Homes Division),  SCO 1110-1111, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh-160022.

 

2^nd Address:

M/s Sahara India Pariwar (Sahara City Homes Marketing and Sales Corporation) Command Office, Sahara India Bhawan, 1 Kapoorthala Complex, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024 through its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Party.

 

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Atul Goyal, Adv. for the complainant Sh.Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the OP.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  the OP floated a scheme for the sale of housing unit, commercial unit and other properties under “Sahara City Homes” Scheme and he opted for the same and subsequently, he was allotted independent ROW HS , Unit Area measuring 172.65 sq. meters, terrace area 52.71 sq. mtrs.  He made the first payment of Rs.2,16,050/- on 02.12.2004 against receipt (Annexure C-1). He further deposited Rs.2,26,050/- against receipt dated 23.12.2004 (Annexure C-2 Colly.).   However, the OP failed to do anything till 2011 inspite of receiving Rs.4,42,100/-. Subsequently, the OP offered three options and he opted for the option for waiting to project to commence subject to final decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as he was under bona fide belief that the litigation will come to its conclusion within 2-3 years but even after 9 years there seems to be very bleak chances that the unit was to be allotted soon.  It has further been averred that he requested the OP to refund the deposited amount along with interest but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.    
2.         In its written statement, the OP has pleaded that the affordable houses were to be given on the leasehold basis. It has further been pleaded that the OP offered to refund him the entire amount with interest @ 8% p.a. vide Annexure C-3 but remained  associated with the project on his wish and will and filed the case after a gap of more than 9 years after such an offer.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has failed to discharge his burden by bringing him within the definition of consumer and thus raising any consumer dispute. It has further been pleaded that they offered the complainant vide Annexure C-3, the intention to refund the amount with 8% interest but he opted to stay in the project till the decision of pending litigations. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the OP controverting its stand and reiterating his own.      
4.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         The Counsel for the OP has submitted that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. However, we express our regret to accept this submission of the OP as in the receipt at page 11 of the complaint, the location/place of the unit is mentioned as “Chandigarh” and simultaneously in Annexure C-3, the region name has been mentioned as “Chandigarh R.O.”  The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

        “It gives us immense pleasure while conveying our sincere thanks to you for showing your interest to be a part of Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh. It is brought to your kind notice that we have already acquired over 200 acres of agriculture land for SCH, Chandigarh. ….. The competent authority had issued the letter of intent (LOI) dated 16.11.2006 for Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh”

                In this view of the matter, this Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the objection of the OP in this regard, being devoid of any merit, is rejected accordingly.

6.           The  next preliminary objection, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainant falls within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, or not. It may be stated here that the mere objection of OP that the investment in the property by the complainant is purely for commercial purposes and speculative investments and that he is not in need of the unit for personal use but is purely investor, does not carry any weight and the same is liable to be rejected because there is nothing on record that the complainant is property dealer, and deals in the sale and purchase of property. No evidence was also produced, by the OP, to prove that the complainant owned a number of other properties, in the tricity, and, as such, the unit, in question, was purchased by him for speculative gains and is a commercial transaction. The complainant, thus, fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the OP, in its written statement, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
7.         As regards, the objection of the OP regarding relationship of lessor and lessee is concerned, the same is also deserves to be dismissed as the OP has itself failed to deliver the possession of the unit to the complainant as promised and as such no question arises for the relationship of the lessor and lessee between the complainant and the OPs.  As regards, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Estate Officer and Another Vs. Charanjit Kaur passed in Civil Appeal No.4964/2021, decided on 07.09.2021, relied upon by the OP is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8.           The complainant had booked the unit in Sahara City Homes project at Chandigarh in the year 2004 and made the payment of Rs.2,16,050/-  against receipt dated 02.12.2004 and Rs.2,26,050/- against receipt dated 23.12.2004 available on record from Pg. No.9 & 10 of the paper-book.      Although the OP in their reply admitted to have received Rs.4,42,100/- from the complainant, yet the receipts placed on record by the complainant evidencing the payment of a total amount of Rs.4,42,100/- cannot be ignored. The OP  stated in their letter dated 9.5.2011 that though they have acquired 200 acres of agricultural land for Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh and got the Change of Land Use (CLU) Order No.18/52/2002-1HG-2/9238, dated 27.9.2005 and Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 16.11.2006, but expressed their inability to develop and complete the project due to unreasonable demand of Rs.15.9 lakhs per acre towards the External Development Charges by the Government and consequent litigation arising thereto. The Opposite Party offered the complainant for allotment in any other project of Sahara City Homes or in the alternative to refund the entire amount with simple interest @8% per annum thereon (Pg.No.12 of the paper-book), in case of option for cancellation of booking. The Opposite Party has indulged into litigation over the terms & conditions regarding payment of External Development Charges to the State Government Authorities for which the ordinary citizens, who have invested money with intent to get a simple unit of residence, could not be made to suffer.  It is the responsibility of the developer itself to sort out the procedural requirements as applicable thereto.  The Opposite Party after receiving of money in the year 2004 from the complainant virtually did nothing at site to develop the project.  The Opposite Party definitely has utilized the amount of the complainant for its commercial purposes and might have earned a lot thereof.  The Opposite Party should have suo-motto returned the money to the complainant with interest if it is so serious, rather it chose to file Writ Petition in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and slept over the matter waiting for the outcome of the litigation without any eagerness to pay back the money to the complainant/beneficiary.  There is prima facie clear unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in failing to meet out its commitments as agreed to at the time of receiving of booking amount from the complainant.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant is right in seeking refund of his hard earned money from the OP because he cannot be deprived of the use of his hard earned money without any fault on his part.
9.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under :-

(i)       To refund the amount of Rs.4,42,100/- to the Complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of respective payments, till realization.

(ii)    To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.           This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 8% p.a. on the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of respective payments till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 30/11/2021
	Sd/- (RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER