DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===

                   Complaint  Case No  :  280 of 2010

Date of Institution :   03.05.2010

                                          Date of  Decision   :   12.10.2011         

Teerth Ram Chand s/o Sh. Jagat Ram, #3061, Ajanta Enclave, Sector 51, Chandigarh.

---Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

­---Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D. GOEL                                      PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                     MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Alok Bhatara, Counsel for Complainant.

 Sh.Arun Kumar, Counsel for OP.

                ---                    

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

                Shorn of all unnecessary details, suffice it to mention here that this complaint has arisen on account of non-delivery of possession to the Complainant by the OP, despite repeated requests. It was alleged in response to the Scheme floated by the OP for allotment of residential plots, the late father of the Complainant sh. Jagat Ram applied for a 10 marla plot & was allotted Plot No. 205-P by the OP, whereafter he deposited the requisite installments, receipts of which are at Annexure C-4 to C-8, respectively. The possession of the plot was to be given within a period of 5 years from the date of allotment. After his sad demise, the Complainant applied for, and got the aforesaid plot transferred in his name. It was alleged that OP has failed to deliver the possession on one pretext or the other, despite umpteen numbers of visits and requests. A considerable period has elapsed, but there was no development on the site. Hence, the present complaint.

2]             Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking their version of the case.

3]             OP in its reply admitted the factual aspects of the case. It was pleaded that the Haryana Govt. has wrongly launched proceedings against the OP for developing Shalimar Estates and due to this reason the possession could not be delivered to the Complainant, within the period of five years. However, the OP challenged the proceedings before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of filing a CWP, wherein stay has been granted and the Writ Petition stands admitted. Moreover, the possession of the plot would be given to the Complainant, but the Complainant choose to approach this Hon’ble Forum just to harass, pressurize and to lower down the reputation of the OP. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6}              The admitted facts of the case may be noticed thus:-

                             i.              OP had agreed to sell Plot No.205-P measuring 10 Marla in Phase-I at the proposed Shalimar Estates Naggal-Alipur at Village Alipur and Naggal Hadbast No.238 for Rs.2,45,025/- to the father of the complainant namely Sh.Jagat Ram

                           ii.              That as per clause 5 of the sale agreement, the possession of the said flat was to be delivered within five years from the date of allotment.

                         iii.              That OP received total sale consideration of the plot from the father of the complainant.

7.              The complainant has placed on record the copy of the sale agreement executed between the parties on 15.03.2002. As per clause 5 of the said sale agreement, the possession of the plot was to be given to the allottee in about 5 years from the date of allotment.  In this manner, the possession should have been delivered to the complainant by 15.03.2007 but admittedly OPs failed to give the possession to the complainant so far despite his repeated requests. 

8.              The grouse of the complainant is that in fact, the OP has not obtained the permission from HUDA nor they obtained the sanction due to which they have not been able to set up the colony.  It has been argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that the Government of Haryana wrongly launched criminal proceedings against them for developing Shalimar Estates, which action was challenged by the OP before the Hon`ble High Court and demolition and dispossession of the OPs by Haryana Government has been Stayed. The OP has failed to produce on record any document to show if they had obtained necessary permission/sanction to set up the colony.  Had it been so, the question of the Government of Haryana initiating criminal action against them would not have arisen.  We are therefore of the opinion that the OP did not have the permission of setting up the colony but they mis-represented the complainant to believe that they could set up the colony and sell the plot and obtained from him the amount in question.  The OP has failed to deliver the possession to the complainant and get sale deed executed in favour of Sh.Jagat Ram with in a period of five years as promised by them. 

9.              It is also admitted that OP received Rs.22,275/- against receipt dated 20.12.2001 (Annexure C-1), Rs.38,981.25 vide receipt dated 18.02.2002 (Annexure C-3), Rs.58,193.44 vide receipt dated 20.01.2003 (Annexure C-4),  Rs.53599.22 vide receipt dated 19.01.2004 (Annexure C-5), Rs.49,005/- vide receipt dated 19.01.2005 (Annexure C-6),  Rs.44,410.78 vide receipt dated 18.01.2006 (Annexure C-7) and Rs.39,816.56 vide receipt dated 24.01.2007 (Annexure C-8). Despite receiving the total sale consideration from the complainant, the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within the stipulated period which itself amounts to deficiency in service.   Due to the illegal action of OP, the complainant has also been deprived of purchasing other property at reasonable rates for which the OP is liable to compensate the complainant.

10.            Moreso, the complainant is entitled to the return of the amount paid by him in view of the undertaking given by the OP itself vide advertisement in “The Tribune” dated 17.1.2007. The said advertisement reads as under:-

“This is for the information of general public, all concerned and particularly for our esteemed intending allottees that tentatively the possession of plots for schemes of the company launched in year 2002 at Shalimar Estates Naggal-Alipur is to be given in this year since the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High court on some technical issues as such possession of the plots may be delayed till the decision of the Hon’ble Court in case any regular intending allottees is not interested to wait till that time he/she is free to withdraw his application from the Scheme and can apply for refund of his deposited amount. However, the intending allottees who will continue with the Scheme will get the possession of plots after the decision of the Hon’ble Court. In case of any adverse decision by the Hon’ble Court due to which the Company will be forced to scrap the whole scheme then they will be entitled for full refund of their deposited amount till that time after the decision of the Hon’ble Court.”

11.            Now it is established on record that the possession of the plot could not be delivered to the complainant due to non-completion of the construction work by the OP, therefore, it would be justified to direct the OP to pay to the complainant the interest on the deposited amount along with litigation costs.

12.            As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount of Rs.3,06,281/- deposited by the Complainant with the OPs from  respective dates of its deposit till the date of handing over the possession of the plot in question besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs within one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.  

13.            Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.