Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/492/2020

Mr. Pankaj Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia & Sapna Vasudeva

01 May 2024

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	492 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	23.09.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	01.05.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Pankaj Sood s/o Sh. K.G. Singh, C/o Digital Technologies, NH-21, BBMB Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

Present Residential Address:-

    r/o House No. 4014, Near Sunny Club,   Sector 125, Mohali, Panjab-140301.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd ., Regd. Office: SCO 123-124, 3rd Floor, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh-160017.

2]  M/s YellowStone Builders Pvt. Ltd., Site Office: Yellowstone Landmark InfoCity, Sector 66A, Near SAS Nagar/Mohali Railway Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

3]  Mr. Aprajit Sachdeva, Manager Marketing, M/s YellowStone Builders Pvt. Ltd., Site Office: Yellowstone Landmark InfoCity, Sector 66A, Near SAS Nagar/Mohali Railway Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

4]  Mr. Tejinder Singh Bhatia, Managing Director, M/s Sukhm Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., M/s YellowStone Builders Pvt. Ltd., Site Office: Yellowstone Landmark InfoCity, Sector 66A, Near SAS Nagar/Mohali Railway Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

    ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Present:     Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for the complainant (Through V.C.)

None for OPs

 

 

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

         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant was allotted a Three Bed Room Residential Apartment of 1775 sq. ft. by OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide Receipt dated 17.11.2011 in their project Yellow Stone Landmark Infocity, Sector 66-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Ann.C-1). It is stated that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.15,92,618/- to OPs against the Basic Sale Price of the flat to be Rs.63,70,475/-, which has been acknowledged vide Letter dated 31.5.2011 (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that the further payment to the builder was dependent upon construction of the apartment and demand letters to be issued by the OPs but no demand letter were issued by the OPs because no construction work took place at the site.  It is also submitted that the permissions and sanctions have not been received by the OPs even till date no necessary clearance and approval had been sought before launching the project.  It is further submitted that the OPs failed to even allot a specific number of apartment to the complainant despite several visits lastly made in Jan., 2020.  Ultimately, the complainant sought refund of his amount from the OPs vide letter dated 10.1.2020 (Ann.C-4) followed by reminder dated 28.2.2020 and 27.7.2020 (Ann.C-5 to C-7) but the OPs neither offered the possession nor refunded the amount. Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.15,92,618/- with interest as well as to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost.

 

2]       After service of notice upon the OPs, the OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written version. The OPs while admitting the receipt of amount as alleged by the complainant against registration for one apartment in the project of the OPs, as a matter of record, stated that due to sudden change in the government policies by the Govt. of Punjab, the OPs had to bear huge financial burden resulting into financial crunch and almost stalling the development in the project.  It is stated that the Govt. of Punjab withheld the approvals and did not grant the requisite sanctions/permission, which became fatal to the project of the OPs. It is also stated that the OPs had planed for proper execution of the project but due to unforeseen, unfortunate circumstances the entire project got delayed. It is submitted that the OPs did not receive any booking or gave offers to anyone before the launch of the project and the project of the OPs is duly registered with RERA and they are having time until March, 2022 to complete the project and the OPs are in process of offering possessions to the allottees within very short period of time. It is pleaded that if the complainant is ready and willing to take the refund, the answering OPs are ready to refund the amount as per company policy. Denying all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have gone through entire documents on record including written arguments.

5]       From the documents on record as well as pleadings of parties, it is observed that the complainant has admittedly been registered for a residential apartment of Three Bed Room measuring 1775 sq. ft. in the subject project by the OPs.  It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.15,92,618/- had already been paid by the complainant to the OPs. However, the OPs neither issued Allotment Letter nor executed Buyer’s Agreement with the complainant despite receipt of substantial amount nor offered possession of the apartment.  Moreover, the OPs have failed to justify the ground of collection of amount from the complainant without getting necessary approvals and sanctions from all the concerned authorities required as per law before collection of amount for the booking of the apartment in the year 2011-12.

6]       It is settled law by 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:

“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.

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 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:-

    “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.”

          Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the unit in question certainly proves deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. 

7]       In Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC), it is held that when a person applies for the allotment of a building or site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority and enters into an agreement with the Developer or the Contractor, the nature of transaction is covered by the expression ‘service’ of any description. Housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body constitutes ‘service’ within the ambit of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  Similar principle of law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board Vs. Bishambar Dayal Goyal & Ors. (AIR 2014 S.C. 1766), while holding as under:-

“…….We would reiterate that the statutory Boards and Development Authorities which are allotting sites with the promise of development, are amenable to the jurisdiction of consumer forum in case of deficiency of services as has already been decided in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Amarjeet Singh & Ors.[1]; Karnataka Industrial Areas and Development Board v. Nandi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.[2]. This Court in Narne Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [3] referred to its earlier decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [4] and duly discussed the wide connotation of the terms “consumer” and “service” under the consumer protection laws and reiterated the observation of this Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (supra) which is provided hereunder :

“5. In the context of the housing construction and building activities carried on by a private or statutory body and whether such activity tantamounts to service within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2(1) of the Act, the Court observed: (LDA case, SCC pp. 256- 57, para 6):

“…when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor. The one is contractual service and the other statutory service. If the service is defective or it is not what was represented then it would be unfair trade practice as defined in the Act….”

 

         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: -

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.

 

8]       Under above mentioned facts, the complainant is not obliged to accept any other offer of OPs when they failed to honour the commitment/promise made with complainant. Therefore, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant but also caused immense harassment & mental agony.    

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, it is proved on record that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering required service to the complainant and indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, the present complaint stands partly allowed against the Opposite Parties with directions to refund to the complainant the deposited amount of Rs.15,92,618/- along with interest @10% per annum from the respective date(s) of its deposit, till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

10]      Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.    

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01.05.2024                                                      

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER