Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/52/2020

Manisha Kanwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Rajesh Verma & Mukesh Verma

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	52/2020
Date of Institution	:	23.01.2020
Date of Decision	:	18.03.2024

 

                                 

                    

 

Manisha Kanwar w/o Sh.Sunil Kanwar r/o Village Dhali, P.O. Pharal, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

1. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., through its Managing Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu s/o Sh.Nachhattar Singh (Numberdar) r/o Dhaba Kokrian, PO Bahader Kherha, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka-152116.

 

2.    M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu Present Address: Adab City Centre, SCO No. 3, Adjoining YES Bank, Opposite Subway and Café Coffee Day, Kharar Landran Road, Sector 114, Mohali Earlier Address: SCO No. 46-47, 1 Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
		SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for complainant OP No.1 exparte. None for OP No.2.

 

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

1.         By dint of this common order, we propose to dispose of 03 connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.  The detailed of the amount alleged to be deposited by the complainant with the OP(s) is as under:-

Sr. No.	Case No.	Parties Name	Plot size, Project Name & Consideration	Amount Deposited in Rs.
1.	52/2020	Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another.	Cottage Farm measuring 605 sq. yards.  in “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar,  Mohali for Rs.4.50 Lakhs	Rs.4.50 lakhs (Annexures C-2 & C-3)
2.	500/2020	Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another.	Cottage Farm measuring 1210 sq. yards.  in “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar,  Mohali	Rs.6,80,000/- (Annexure C-2)
3.	02/2022	Bimla Rani Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another.	Residential plot measuring 605 sq. yards.  in “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar,  Mohali and later on in lieu of the above said plot, allotted commercial space measuring 250 sq. ft. in “Emerging  World” located at Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.” Landran Banur Road, Mohali for net sale price of Rs.44,37,500/- + Other charges	Rs.45,03,875/-  (Annexures C-1, C-3, C-4 to C-8)

2.         The facts are gathered from C.C.No.52/2020- Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another.
3.        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that being allured by the brochures and pamphlets of the OPs, the complainant applied for a cottage farmhouse measuring 605 sq. yards in the project of the OPs known as “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar,  Mohali by paying entire payment Rs.4.50,000/- through cheques as per plan B against receipts dated 01.07.2013 (Annexures C-2 and C-3) for his personal use and occupation of her family members. It has been averred that the OPs demanded Rs.50,000/- for executing the sale deed qua the land in favour of the complainant and the said amount was paid by the complainant but no receipt qua the same has been issued.  It has further been averred that the OPs have not taken any permission from the GMADA nor they have got CLU for selling the plots and as such they have played a fraud with the public.  Subsequently, the complainant sought the refund of the deposited amount along with interest but the same has not been refunded despite the requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.   
4. After service of notice, OP No.2 filed its written statement stating therein that the complainant never paid any payment to it and neither she is competent to file the present complaint qua it. It has further been stated that the payments qua the booked plot have been made by the complainant to OP No.1 and as such the complainant has no privity of contract with it. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.        Despite due service through publication, OP No.1 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.11.2022.
6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents on record.
7. From the documentary evidence on record especially the receipts  (Annexures C-2 and C-3), it is observed that the complainant booked a cottage farm measuring 605 sq. yards in the draw of lots held on 14.06.2012 vide application No.SSWP-987 and paid Rs.4.50 lakhs through two cheques.  Vide Annexure C-4, OP No.1 has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4.50  lakhs from the complainant qua her full and final sale price of the share. The complainant has specifically deposed in the affidavit that the plot(s) were sold/marketed by the OPs without obtaining any license(s)/approval(s) from the competent authorities/GMADA and they have not taken the permission from the concerned authorities for selling the units/floors.  The OPs have neither refunded the deposited amount to the complainant nor delivered the possession of the unit in question complete in all respects to the complainant so far, which itself amounts to deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice.  

              The Hon’ble National 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”.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that 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.
9. It may be stated here that the OPs did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference that they have nothing to contradict in defence against the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted & un-controverted.
10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and OP No.1 who is not in a position to develop the project has no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant. OP No.1 is, thus, proved deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.
11.        For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly allowed.
12.         In C.C.No.52/2020- Manisha Kanwar Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another, OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
13.         In C.C.No.500/2020- Wazir Singh Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another, OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.6,80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
14.         In C.C.No.02/2022- Bimla Rani Vs. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. and Another, the OPs are directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.45,03,875/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.  
15. This order be complied with by the OP(s), within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the complainants shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.
16.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
17.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced	(S.K.SARDANA)	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU]
18.03.2024	MEMBER	PRESIDENT