Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/660/2015

Neelam Kotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/660/2015
Date of Institution	:	29/09/2015
Date of Decision	:	30/06/2016

 

Neelam Kotra w/o Sh. Rohit Kumar Kotra r/o H.No.1156, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2.     M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Lakhwinder Singh.

3.     M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh. Shaife Kumar.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Smt. Neelam Kotra, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) for handing over the possession of property demarcated cottage farm house allotted to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. or to pay the buy-back amount of Rs.5,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. besides compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

                As per the complainant, she was approached and allured by the agents of the OPs by distributing brochures and pamphlets. After reading through the same, the complainant applied for a cottage farm house of 605 sq. yards for personal use and occupation of her family members and deposited an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- as entire sale consideration vide receipt (Annexure C-2) as per payment plan. The OPs allotted a cottage farm house No.SSWP-151 in the draw of lots held on 14.6.2012.  The complainant received letter dated 1.8.2012 vide which the OPs gave an option of buy back to the complainant @ Rs.5,85,000/- after three years from 26.5.2012. The possession of the cottage farm house was to be delivered within two years and the buy-back option was to be exercised after three years in case the possession is not taken. The OPs got a registry done in favour of the complainant on 17.10.2012 for 1/25435 share in the total land without any demarcation and cottage number. The complainant was told that the land shall be developed and proper demarcation shall be done in two years’ time and the possession shall be handed over to her.  The site was not developed, the project was delayed and the OPs failed to offer the possession within the promised period of two years.  The complainant wrote a number of letters and also served a legal notice to the OPs with a request to pay the buy-back amount, but, to no avail. Hence, this complaint. 

2.         The OPs did not appear despite due service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 2.6.2016. 
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5.         Annexure C-1 is a copy of the advertisement brochure issued by the OPs for allotment of cottage farm houses and farm houses. Annexure C-2 is a copy of the receipt dated 15.5.2012 which proves that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the OPs and the same was acknowledged by the OPs.  Annexure C-3 is a copy of the certificate which proves that the complainant was allotted a cottage farm house having area of 605 sq. yd. in the draw of lots held on 14.6.2012.  Annexure C-4 is copy of letter dated 1.8.2012 whereby the OPs offered to buy back the said cottage farm house @ Rs.5,85,000/-. Annexure C-5 is a copy of the jamabandi which proves that the land having 1/25435 share was transferred in the name of the complainant.
6.         From the evidence on record, it is proved that the OPs advertised their project for allotment of cottage farm houses and farm houses and she was allotted a cottage farm house against which the total consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- was received by the OPs.  The complainant has made the full payment.  Now it was the duty of the OPs to allot the cottage farm house to the complainant, but, they failed to allot the same within the stipulated period of two years. The OPs have only succeeded in transferring 1/25435 share of the land in favour of the complainant, but, the land has not been partitioned or the demarcated for handing over the possession to the complainant.
7.         It is pertinent to mention that the OPs opted to remain absent than to contest this consumer complaint. So, it can be safely presumed that the OPs have nothing to say in their defence.  The complainant has specifically pleaded that neither the possession of the cottage farm house has been handed over to her nor there is any development at the site.  This version of the complainant cannot be disbelieved as the averments of the complainant have not been controverted by the OPs. 
8.         Annexure C-1 proves that the OPs had launched a project for sale of plots for cottage farm houses and farm houses and for that purpose the OPs were required to obtain permission from the competent authorities. The first requirement was to get the Change of Land Use (CLU) permission. The brochure (Annexure C-1) issued by the OPs nowhere proves that the OPs had any such permission with them. In the absence of any such permission of CLU, the OPs were not in a position to offer the allotment of plots to the complainant and others because the agricultural land cannot be sold in the shape of plots without getting the CLU. Even if the OPs have got some land transferred in the name of the complainant, that would not itself prove that the OPs have allotted the cottage farm house to the complainant. The first requirement for the OPs was to obtain the CLU and other permissions required for establishment of a colony in the shape of cottage farm houses and farm houses, which they have failed to obtain till today. The second requirement for the OPs was to carve out the cottage farm houses and farm houses on the site and allot particular numbers to each cottage farm house and farm house for the purpose of identification.  However, no such action has been taken so far. The land has also not been got partitioned and demarcated so far. By not getting the permission of CLU and by not getting the land partitioned and demarcated, the OPs have kept the complainant in dark. This conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice.  After accepting the amount from the complainant in the year 2012, no steps were taken by the OPs to complete the project. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9.         The complainant has succeeded in proving that she had purchased the cottage farm house on showing a very rosy picture of the project by the OPs.  The OPs have not turned up to contest this complaint, so, the averments of the complainant remain uncontroverted.  Since the OPs had sold out the project without any approvals and sanctions granted by the government authorities, so the OPs are to face the music and consequences of duping the complainant of her hard earned money. There is not even a single evidence that the OPs ever approached the competent authorities to get the permissions or approvals for launching their project.  The OPs could not sell their project until and unless proper approvals and sanctions were obtained by them from the competent authorities. Even if at the initial stage no approvals were obtained, then also the OPs were required to obtain the approvals/sanctions from the competent authorities immediately after accepting the sale consideration from the complainant.
10.         As per the brochure Annexure C-1 and assurance to the complainant, she was allotted a cottage farm house which could only be done after proper demarcation, but, instead of getting the land partitioned and properly demarcated, the OPs, in an arbitrary manner, got the land of some other person transferred in the name of the complainant which is a joint land measuring 16400 bigha 18 biswa and the same is evident from the sale deed dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure C-8). The said land has not ever been partitioned.
11.         The evidence on record clearly proves that from the very beginning, the OPs had no intention to complete their project and allot the cottage farm house to the complainant and they just wanted to grab the money of the complainant. This amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to refund of the amount paid by her with interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
12.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit(s), till realization.

(ii)    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant.

(iii)   To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

13.         This order be complied with by OPs, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above. It is clarified that after compliance of the order, OPs can avail their legal remedy to get the land sold to the complainant transferred in their names before the competent court of law.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
30/06/2016	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	President