Gagandeep Singh Bawa filed a consumer case on 05 Mar 2015 against M/S Singla Builders & Promters Ltd. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is CC/108/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Mar 2015.
2nd Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 108 of 2014
Date of institution: 22.07.2014
Date of decision : 05.03.2015
Gagandeep Singh Bawa, son of Late Sh. Tej Onkar Singh Bawa, Permanent resident of H. No. 2202, First Floor, Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab, currently residing at House No. 136, First Floor, Sector 17, Panchkula-134109, Haryana.
…..Complainant
Versus
M/s Singla Builders & promoters Ltd, [SBP Homes Extn] Chhajumajra village, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab through their authorized representative.
.........Opposite party
Complaint under sections 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (As amended upto Date)
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Sh. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Dhawal Bhandari,Advocate
For the opposite party : Ex-parte
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN (PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER):-
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as “OPs”) on the allegations that the OPs are specialized in qualitative and quantitative solutions for the real estate business in the State of Punjab, Himachal, Haryana, Chandigarh, Panchkula, Zirakpur and Mohali. They had launched a new construction Group Housing Project namely SBP Homes Extn in the revenue estate of village Chhajju Majra, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali and issued series of advertisements promising to allot and deliver possession of the promised flats to the people latest by June, 2013. Allured by the promises made by the OPs, an application was made by the complainant with the OPs along with booking amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- vide cheque No. 297681 dated 15.02.2012 drawn at HDFC, Phase 7, Mohali and its receipt was issued by OPs on 12.02.2012. Subsequently, they issued Apartment Buyers Agreement which was executed between the parties on 20.02.2012, for which the price of the flat was agreed to be Rs. 33,00,000/- and apartment No. 197/6, Floor Tower 197 Type 3 BHK Super Area (sq. Ft) 1540. To make the payment, the complainant raised a loan through Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited with the assistance of OPs and Tripartite Agreement was executed in favour of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. As per clause 4 of the Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be delivered on or before June, 2013 and another similar advertisement issued by them on 05.01.2013. The complainant paid 90% of the payment alongwith service tax i.e. Rs. 30,59,223/-. The complainant had been inquiring from the OPs subsequently about the status of the project, but the OPs gave confusing signal to the complainant. When the complainant visited the site, he was shocked to see that there was no trace of even remote completion of the construction by June, 2013. However, after 4-5 months, nothing concrete came out with regard to the possession, then in the month of June, 2013, the complainant visited the site and was stunned to see that there was no possibility of the OPs to hand over the possession of the flat to the complainant. In those circumstances, the complaint was left with no alternative but to serve a Legal Notice to the OPs to refund the said amount alongwith interest due to delay in delivery of possession, complainant had to pay rent for residential premises till March, 2014 at Mohali. He was paying the rent @ Rs. 12,000/- per month. Thereafter, he had been paying rent at Panchkula. He also paid a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the interest to the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited. The OPs have failed to deliver the services as promised which amounts to deficiency in services. Hence, the complaint with the directions to the OPs for the refund of Rs. 30,59,223/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards health charges, mental agony, harassment and undue anxiety caused to the complainant in making series of inquiring about the status of the flat and Rs. 35,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 15.10.2014 and upto 12.12.2014, it was not received back in any form and in case registered letter properly addressed is not received back within a period of 30 days, then there is presumption of service but none was present on behalf of the OPs and they were proceeded Ex-Parte on 12.12.2014.
3. In the Ex-Parte evidence, the complainant lead the evidence by tendering the following documents. He tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Gagandeep Singh Bawa, complainant, son of Late Sh. Tej Onkar Singh Bawa as Ex.CW/1 alongwith documents as Ex. C/1 (colly) copy of brochure, Price lists and payment schedule dated 2012 Ex. C-2, copy of application form of OP dated 12.02.2012, Ex. C-3 copy of payment receipt of Rs. 1,65,000/- issued by opposite party dated 12.02.2012, Ex. C-4 copy of apartment buyers agreement dated 20.02.2012, Ex. C-5 copy of payment receipt of Rs. 3,30,000/- dated 20.02.2012, Ex. C-6 (colly) copy of tripartite agreement and its related documents of dated 24.03.2012, Ex. C-7 copy of Chandigarh Tribune edition advertisement dated 05.01.2013, Ex. C-8 (colly) payment receipt of Rs. 4,95,000/- issued by opposite party dated 12.05.2012, 20.11.2012, 18.02.2013, 18.05.2013 and of Rs. 89223 dated 08.06.2013, Ex. C-9 (colly) various copies of communication between complainant and opposite party dted 19.06.2014, 10.03.2014, 14.04.2014, Ex. C-10 (colly) photographs taken on site dated 21.06.2014, Ex. C-11 copy of legal notice sent to opposite party by counsel of complainant dated 24.06.2014, Ex. C-12 copy of agreement of lease deed, dated 08.04.2014, Ex. C-13 copy of HDFC bank statement dated 23.06.2014 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, evidence and documents on record.
5. The complainant had applied for one flat with the OPs and flat No. 197/6, Floor Tower 197 Type 3 BHK Super Area (sq. Ft) 1540 was allotted to the complainant. Ex. C-1 is the scheme, how the apartments were to be constructed. There were two plan for payment. Plan-A and Plan- B. In Plan-A, 5% was to be paid at the time of possession, 80% within 30 days of booking and 5% at the time of notice of possession whereas in Plan-B, 5% at the time of booking and other was to be paid within the period of 5 months and 10% at the time of possession. A sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- was paid by the complainant at the time of booking vide receipt Ex. C-3. The Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties under which the total agreed price between the parties was Rs. 33 lacs and as per clause 4 (a) (i), the possession was to be delivered on or before 30.06.2013. It was further provided in clause 4 (a) (ii) that the builders shall be entitled for the extension of 6 months to deliver the possession. According to clause 4-(f), in case of default, the Developer may offer the Purchaser (s) an alternative property or refund the amount in full with interest @ 10% per annum without any further liability to pay damages or any other compensation. The complainant has also proved on record, the payment receipt of Rs.3,30,000/-dated 20.02.2012 Ex.C-5, Rs.4,95,0000/- dated 12.05.2012 Ex. C-8, Rs. 4,95,000/- dated 20.11.2012 Ex. C-8, Rs. 4,95,000/- dated 18.02.2013 Ex. C-8, Rs. 4,95,000/- dated 18.05.2013 Ex. C-8 and Rs. 89,223/- dated 08.06.2013. In that way, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 30,59,223/- but the OPs have failed to deliver the possession within the agreed time or within extension period allowed under agreement and according to default case, the complainant is entitled for the refund of money. There is no rebuttal to the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the evidence produced on record. In the absence of the rebuttal of the allegations in the complaint and evidence on the record, it stand proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs to deliver the possession of the promised flat to the complainant within the stipulated period or within the extension period which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund to all these amounts deposited with the OPs as per the terms of Buyers Agreement.
6. In view of the above discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs:-
i. to refund of Rs. 30,59,223/- received from the complainant on the basis of agreement to give flat No. 197/6, Floor Tower 197 Type 3 BHK Super Area (sq. Ft) 1540
ii. to pay 10% interest on the above said amount from the date of receipt of money till payment.
iii. to pay Rs. 2 lac as compensation on account of mental harassment to the complainant.
iv. To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
The OPs are directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order, otherwise proceedings under section 27 of CP Act shall be initiated against them.
13. The arguments in this complaint were heard on 26.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
(JASBIR SINGH GILL)
MEMBER
(HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)
March 5, 2015. MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.