Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/374/2023

MRS. DEEPIKA BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHREE VARDHMAN, GREEN SPACE INFRAHEIGHTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/374/2023
Date of Institution	:	25/07/2023
Date of Decision	:	01/10/2024

       

                                               

                       

 

 

 

Mrs. Deepika Bhatia wife of Sh. Neeraj Bhatia, aged about 44 years, H.No.3055, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Shree Vardhman, Green Space Infraheights Private Limited, Regd. Office : 306, 3^rd Floor, Indraprakash Building 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhil-110001 through its Managing Director

2.       M/s Shree Vardhman, Green Space Infraheights Private Limited, SCO-10, 1^st Floor, Sector-26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Director-Sh. Sachin Jain.

3.       M/s Shree Vardhman, Green Space Infraheights Private Limited, SCO-406, 1^st Floor and 2^nd Floor, Sector-20, Panchkula – Haryana, PIN 134116, through its Director-Sandeep Jain

2^nd Address : Site Office : Shree Vardhman, Green Space (National Highway-73, Panchkula-Yamuna Nagar), Panchkula Extension, Panchkula – Haryana.

 

…. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER

 

 

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Sumit Kumar, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Counsel for OPs (through VC) (Defence already struck off)

 

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

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that the OPs through various publications, publicity, assurances floated a proposed scheme for allotment of independent flats in the housing project known as “Shree Vardhman Green Space” located at Village Bilah, Sector 14, Extn.-II, Panchkula and the complainant decided to purchase a flat in the same.  At the time of booking OPs informed that the project had been approved from the concerned authorities and all the necessary permissions from the competent authorities had been obtained and the possession would be delivered within four years. Believing the assurances of the OPs, complainant applied for a residential flat in the said project and paid booking amount of ₹72,163/- after which OPs vide letter dated 26.8.2015 (Annexure C-3) allotted flat No.503, Tower E, 5^th Floor in the aforesaid project to her.  Thereafter, Flat Buyer’s Agreement dated 18.1.2016 (Annexure C-5) was also executed between the parties. According to the complainant, she paid total amount of ₹14,60,963/- to the OPs on different dates vide receipts (Annexure C-2, C-4 and C-6 to C-24) as tabulated below :-

S.No.	Date	Amount
	29.05.2015	72,163/-
	07.10.2015	2,89,800/-
	25.04.2016	75,000/-
	23.06.2016	1,00,000/-
	08.09.2016	50,000/-
	01.10.2016	50,000/-
	07.10.2016	25,035/-
	02.11.2016	50,000/-
	18.01.2017	25,000/-
	15.02.2017	25,000/-
	08.03.2017	25,000/-
	18.03.2017	25,000/-
	24.03.2017	25,000/-
	07.04.2017	25,000/-
	17.04.2017	25,000/-
	03.10.2017	1,24,000/-
	04.01.2018	72,000/-
	21.02.2018	70,000/-
	10.04.2018	1,19,215/-
	11.09.2018	1,03,000/-
	29.09.2018	85,750/-
	Total	14,60,963/-

The complainant regularly visited the construction site of the OPs and requested to hand over the possession but they failed to do so. Vide email dated 16.8.2022 (Annexure C-26) OPs intimated the complainant that 80% work of the flat is completed. On the assurance of OPs, when the complainant again visited the site on 5.2.2023, it was found that they had not started the construction work. Accordingly, vide email dated 7.2.2023 (Annexure C-27), complainant requested the OPs to refund the paid amount but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount paid alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.

2.        Since OPs failed to file their written version within the stipulated period granted by this Commission, as provided under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2016 SC 86 and M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Manisha Bhargava & Anr., II (2021) SLT 201, their defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 3.10.2023.
3.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
4.        It is observed from the record of the file that the complainant had paid total amount of ₹14,60,963/- to OPs on different dates, as is also evident from the receipts (Annexure C-2, C-4 and C-6 to C-24). However, when the OPs collected money from the complainant, they had not obtained the required sanctions, permissions and approvals etc. from all the concerned competent authorities from where they were legally bound to take the same.  Thus, collection of amount from the consumers without having such sanctions, permissions and approvals etc. from the concerned quarters is not only illegal and wrong but also amounts to unfair trade practice as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  The relevant provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (as amended upto date) mandates that the OPs should have obtained all the necessary sanctions, permissions and approvals etc. from the concerned authorities before collection of the amount from the consumers and thereafter they are legally bound to execute the buyer’s agreement therein specifically mentioning that such and such date should be the date of delivery of possession to the consumers, failing which a reasonable time is considered to be just and fair to deliver the agreed apartment to the complainant/consumer as upheld in many cases by the higher authorities from the date of buyer’s agreement between the parties.  Pertinently, as per the Flat Buyer’s Agreement, OPs proposed to offer possession of the flat within a period of four years from the date of approval of building plans or grant of environment clearance. However, till today, neither the possession of the flat in question, complete in all respects, has been delivered by the OPs to the complainant, despite of requests by her, nor the deposited amount been refunded to her. There is also nothing on record that OPs were having all the necessary permissions/sanctions required for launching the project in question before accepting the deposit from the complainant. Thus, collecting payment from consumers without having necessary approvals from all the concerned authorities in violation of the mandatory provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (as amended upto date) amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice for which the consumer should be compensated adequately. 
5.        The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal 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”.

              The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed as under:-

“The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

              The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018  has held as under:-

“15. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. When once this Court comes to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of services, then the question is what compensation the respondents/ complainants is entitled to?”

              Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as 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.

6.        Hence, the act of OPs in collecting money from the buyers (i.e. the complainant in the present case) before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not handing over possession of the flat in question within the stipulated period and even not honouring their promises/commitments certainly proves deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part, which not only caused financial loss but also immense harassment & mental agony to the complainant, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by OPs.
7.        The buyers to have a comfortable life and having paid their hard earned money to have a flat are not supposed to wait indefinitely for possession. Thus, the complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat and she is entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid along with interest.  
8.        In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed to refund the total deposited amount i.e. ₹14,60,963/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. 
9.        This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED 01/10/2024 hg	(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER