M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited. V/S Rajinder Kaur - Consumer Court Case

Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/288/2022

Rajinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

(1)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/288/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

1. Rajinder Kaur wife Lt. Col. Jagdish Singh, aged about 75 years, resident of House No. 202, Tower B-4, Nirmal Chhaya, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District: Mohali.

2. Ravinder Kaur wife of Sh. Gurjeet Singh, aged about 56 years, 172, Village: Asmanpur, Tehsil; Pehwa, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

…Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

3. M/s Manhattan Infra Services Private Limited (Maintenance Agency) c/o M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties

(2)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/289/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Navneet Singla s/o Tara Chand aged about 71 years, 16, GHS-104-C, Sector 20, Panchkula.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(3)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/290/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Geetika Jain d/o Sh.D.C. Jain aged about 45 years r/o H.No.2131, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(4)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/291/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

1. Neelam Kapur wife Sh.Suneil Kapur, aged about 62 years, resident of House No. 2857, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2. Subhash Rani w/o Sh.Dev Raj Arora, aged about 86 years, resident of House No. 2857, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(5)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/293/2022
Date of Institution	:	10.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Yashmat Sood s/o Sh.Ram Pal Sood aged about 57 years r/o B3-202, Nirmal Chhaya Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(6)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/359/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Ramesh Chand s/o Sh.Som Nath aged about 62 years r/o H.No.716, Sector 8, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(7)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/360/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

1. Jagdish Arora s/o Sh.Ram Chand aged about 68 years r/o H.No.1236, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana.

2. Shakuntal Rani Arora w/o Sh.Jagdish Arora aged about 67 years r/o H.No.1236, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana.

…Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(8)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/361/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Col.B.S.Vasir s/o Sh.Charanjit Singh Vasir aged about 69 years r/o H.No.309, Amarwati Enclave, Chandi Mandir, Panchkula, Haryana.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(9)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/362/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Devender Kumar Singh s/o Sh.Mohinder Singh aged about 52 years, D-72, Ground Floor, South City, Gurugaon, Haryana-122018.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(10)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/363/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Anamika Sood w/o Sh.Rajesh Sood aged about 51 years r/o H.No.88-A/2, Ghuman Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Punjab.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(11)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/364/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

Ashok Mair s/o Sh.Jagdish Lal Mair aged about 63 years r/o H.No.930, Sector 7, Panchkula.

…Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

(12)

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/365/2022
Date of Institution	:	25.03.2022
Date of Decision	:	02/12/2024

1. Akashdeep s/o Sh.Arun Kumar Gupta aged about 32 years, H.No.45, Adarsh Colony, Udampur, Jammu & Kashmir-182101.

2. Meenakshi Gupta w/o Sh.Arun Kumar Gupta aged about 54 years, H.No.45, Adarsh Colony, Udampur, Jammu & Kashmir-182101.

…Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1" Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

2. Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No B-107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh.Vishal Singal, Adv. for Advocate for the OPs.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. Since the reliefs claimed in all the consumer complaints are almost similar and as such, during arguments, it was agreed upon by the parties that captioned consumer complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2022-Rajinder Kaur & Anr. Vs. M/s Sushma Buildtech Ltd. and Others
It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the OPs are builders and developers of residential/commercial buildings and they had launched the project i.e. Sushma Chandigarh Infinium, Delhi Highway, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject project’). The complainants were interested in purchasing a commercial unit to earn their livelihood by way of self employment. As the husband of the complainant No.1 is retired Army Officer and an IT expert, they wanted to set up an office in the premises for running classes. The complainants were invited by agent of the OPs at Unit No B- 107, 1st Floor, Business Complex, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh and informed that the subject project was duly approved by competent authorities and the basic sale price of the Unit Nos.14, 15, 16 & 17 on 11^th Floor with area 446.73 sq. ft. each is Rs.15,44,127/- plus charges in relation to the Preferential Location Charges, Fire Fighting Charges, External Electrification charges, power backup charges, IFMS, Car Parking and any other charges. On receipt of entire basic sale price, Unit Buyer Option Agreement Assured Return Plan dated 24.08.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject Assured Return Agreement’) was executed between the parties and as per the said agreement, the developer was required to provide the assured return to the allottee(s) till the offer of possession. A copy of the said agreement is attached as Annexure C-1. OPs No. 1 & 2 offered possession of subject units even before the building was complete and they handed over the possession of the units without obtaining completion certificate and NOCs from the concerned Departments with mala fide intention of denying the assured return to the allottee(s) and also to levied maintenance charges. The copies Offer of possession letters dated 18.09.2019 and 19.09.2019 are Annexure C-2 to C-5. After getting the possession from the OPs No. 1 & 2, the complainants requested them to provide the completion certificate of the units along with NOC from various departments but they lingered on the matter under one pretext or another. It is further alleged that OPs No.1 and 2 offered the possession of units to different allottee(s) on different floor(s) even in the year 2020 which itself shows that the subject units were not complete when the possession of the same was handed over to the complainants. It is further alleged that in fact the possession as offered by the OPs was a paper possession since the subject units were not complete in all respects. Not only this, OPs No.1 and 2 had appointed their sister concern i.e. OP No.3 as maintenance agency and OP No.3 started charging maintenance charges @ ₹8/- per sq. feet. excluding GST from the allottees. As it is settled law that the legal possession cannot be handed over in the absence of requisite completion & occupancy certificate and necessary sanctions, even if the complainants have taken the possession of the subject units, the same cannot be said as a valid possession. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
The OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, concealment of facts and limitation. However, it is admitted that the said units purchased by the complainants are commercial units. It is also admitted that the subject Assured Return Agreement (Annexure R-4) was/were executed between the parties and the OPs started paying the assured returns to the allottees. It is further alleged that even the complainants have agreed upon various terms and conditions of the said Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure R-3). It is further alleged that the complainants had also entered into maintenance agreement and started paying maintenance charges as per the said agreement and now they have filed false and frivolous complaints. Not only this even the OPs have also paid an assured return to the tune of ₹51,64,244/- to the complainants till the offer of possession for subject units and they are liable to refund the same. It is further alleged that the complainants completed the formalities for physical taking over the possession and also submitted their affidavits and undertakings of being satisfied with the construction of the units and the copies of the same are Annexure R-6 (Colly.) and the said fact has been concealed from this Commission. Not only this, the possession of the subject units was handed over to the complainants on 22.10.2019 (Annexure R-7). The partial occupation/completion certificate as well as the full completion/occupation certificate of the subject project have already been obtained by the OPs on 15.12.2017 and 25.07.2019 and the copies of the same are Annexures R-9 and R-10 respectively. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
In replication, complainant reiterated the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject Unit Nos.14, 15, 16 & 17 were allotted by the OPs to the complainants vide Annexures R-2 (Colly.) and Buyer’s Agreement was executed on 24.08.2013 with respect to the subject units, as is also evident from Annexure R-3(Colly.) and on the same day, the Assured Return Agreement was executed between the parties, as is evident from Annexure R-4(Colly.) and offer of possession letter was also issued to the complainants by the OPs and thereafter the possession was handed over to the complainants, as is also evident from possession letter Annexure R-5(Colly.) as well as the certificate of possession Annexure R-7(Colly.) and till the date of issuance of the letter of offer of possession, the OPs have already paid the assured return to the complainants qua the subject units and they are entitled for the assured return till the completion of the subject units as well as the handing over the legal possession in their favour by the OPs and the OPs have wrongly charged the maintenance charges from the complainants and they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainants, or if they themselves have voluntarily taken actual possession of the subject units from the OPs and had also agreed to pay the maintenance charges and the complaint of the complainants, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.08.2013 [Annexure R-3(Colly.)], Assured Return Agreement’[Annexure R-4(Colly.)], offer of possession letters [Annexure R-5 (Colly.)], certificate of possession letters [Annexure R-7(Colly.)], completion certificate (Annexure R-9) and occupation certificate [Annexure R-10) along with other documents executed by the complainants and the same are required to be scanned carefully
3. Admittedly, as per the Buyer’s Agreement dated 24.08.2013 [Annexure R-3(Colly.)], the OPs had agreed to hand over the possession of the subject units within 42 months from the date of execution of the agreement subject to force majeure circumstances.
4. As per Assured Return Agreement [Annexure R-4(Colly.)], the OPs had agreed to provide the complainants assured return of ₹39.66 per sq. ft. per month basis on investment till the offer of possession. Thus, one thing is clear from both the agreements that the assured return was payable by the OPs to the complainants till the offer of possession from the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement which was admittedly executed on 24.08.2013. It is admitted case of the parties that the OPs have paid assured return to the complainants till the offer of possession letters were issued by the OPs, though it has been disputed by the complainants that in fact the legal possession of the said units have not been handed over by the OPs to the complainants after obtaining the completion certificate and on obtaining other approvals/permissions from the competent authorities.
5. In order to determine the fact if the legal possession has been handed over by the OPs to the complainants qua the subject units or not certain documents having been executed by the complainants and produced by the OPs on record are further required to be scanned carefully.
6. A perusal of the Annexure R-6(Colly.) clearly indicates that the complainants themselves approached the OPs with a request to start the procedures for handing over the possession of the subject units and thereafter the possession was handed over to the complainant in pursuance to their request by the OPs. The relevant portion of the request letter and possession letters are reproduced as under:-

“Request Letter:-

Pursuant to the letter dated_____ from the Company and in accordance with the procedure and timelines prescribed in the apartment/unit buyer agreement dated 24 Aug 2013, between "Sushma Buildtech Limited" and us, we would like to express my intent to take possession of the above mentioned Apartment/Unit and to comply with all the formalities to be fulfilled for the same.

In light of the above mentioned, We request you to start the procedures for handover of possession of the Apartment/Unit to us and We shall be present for the completion of formalities in relation to the same on_____.

Possession Letter:-

In pursuance of the above mentioned allotment letter dated 20 Aug 2013, an apartment/unit buyer agreement dated 24 Aug 2013 was executed between us and Sushma Buildtech Limited, and in conformity with the terms of the afore mentioned apartment/unit buyer agreement, the possession of the Apartment/Unit has been handed over to us.

We declare that all fittings/furnishings, construction quality, materials used has been checked by us and we are fully satisfied as to the quality of construction and amenities provided therein.”

Thus, the possession letters make it clear that the complainants had voluntarily accepted the possession of the subject units from the OPs with their full satisfaction, by stating that the various locations/services etc. have already been completed and they have no objection to any of the said services viz electric poles/transformers, layout of electric lines and street lights, roads and ramps, parking, water tanks etc.
Not only this, even the certificate of possession [Annexure R-7(Colly.)] which bears the signatures of the complainants further make it clear that they have taken the possession of the subject units from the OPs on 22.10.2019 without any objection. Moreover, when the complainants have further given their affidavits dated 22.10.2019 to the OPs deposing that they had inspected the building plan, fittings/furnishings and quality of construction carried out by the OPs and they confirmed that the same has been completed in accordance with the commitment and thereby tendered satisfaction certificates, on being fully satisfied themselves to the same and further undertook that they will not raise any kind of claim/dispute in respect of the subject units, it is safe to hold that the complainants have firstly made request to the OPs for the possession formalities and after voluntarily taking possession of the subject units on their full satisfaction had executed the said documents and it is further safe to hold that the complainants had accepted the lawful possession after their satisfaction from the OPs. The relevant part of the affidavit (Annexure R-8) is reproduced as under:-

“3. That we, the undersigned, have inspected/got inspected the building plan, fittings/furnishings and quality of construction carried out by your Company, and we do hereby further affirm and confirm that the same has been built in accordance with the commitment and representations made by your Company In, Inter all, the apartment/unit buyer agreement dated 24 Aug 2013 entered into between by your Company and us.

4. That we hereby tender this satisfaction certificate regarding the said Apartment/Unit in full consciousness of mind, after having satisfied ourselves on the same, and we do hereby further declare and confirm that. I shall not raise any kind of claim or dispute in respect of the said Apartment/Unit or any of the materials and equipment used against for and in the Apartment/Unit by your Company.”

The OPs have also proved indemnity cum-undertakings along with fitout commencement letter for taking over the subject units for carrying out interiors which are available at page 157 to 168 through which the complainants had sought permission from the OPs to enter into the building to carry out the interiors/internal finishing work like wood work, furniture and fittings etc. as the possession has been handed over to them.
So far as the case of the complainants that the OPs were not having the completion certificates before handing over the possession of subject units is concerned as OPs have proved copies of partial completion certificate and full completion certificate (Annexures R-9 & R-10), it is unsafe to hold that the OPs were not having requisite possession or completion certificates before handing over the possession of the subject units. The ld. Counsel for the OPs further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No.6558/2021-Smt.Swarnpreet Kaur and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, decided on 22.03.2021, in which it was held as under:-

“We cannot be unmindful of the fact that the grant of occupation certificate / completion certificate entails the handing over of the possession of the apartments, the occupation of the apartments by the allottees, the conveyance of the title of the apartments to the allottees. The occupation certificate issued by consideration of the reports of different authorities / departments cannot be easily interfered with upon the allegations of the purported or actual violations as it results in serious and grave prejudice to the settled rights of the residents / apartment owners (running into hundreds) in their absence, and who perhaps are not even aggrieved by the alleged / imagined violation, as canvassed by disgruntled elements in equitable Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950”.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainants have failed to prove the cause of action set up in the consumer complaints and that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such the present consumer complaints deserves to dismiss.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint alongwith all the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, stand dismissed.
A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of the other consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of that file.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/12/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President

			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member

			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member

Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/288/2022

Rajinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sushma Buildtech Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Highly recommended!

Experties

Phone Number

7982270319