Punjab

StateCommission

CC/115/2015

Ashish Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Swami Empire Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

T.S.Khaira

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

                   Consumer Complaint No.115 of 2015

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.05.2015  

                                                          Date of Decision:  21.07.2015

 

Ashish Sharma S/o Sh. Ashwani Sharma, now residing at Kusum Cottage, Stadium Road, Lower Barol, Near ITI, Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh

 

                                                                             …..Complainant…..

                                                Versus

 

1.       M/s Swami Empire Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Mr. Rishab Rana,     S/o Sh. Sarjeevan Singh, Swami Dealing Point, Zirakpur-Kalka Highway, Near Komfort Banquet, Dhakoli Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab 160104.

 

2.       M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure, Builders & Promoters, through its          Director, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Kothi No.207, Sector 80, SAS Nagar           Punjab

 

 

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties….

 

         

Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

 

Present:-

 

          For the complainant                   :  Sh.J.S Khaira, Advocate

         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           We proceed to examine this point at the admissions stage as to whether the complaint is entertainable by this Commission or not. Short controversy, as projected in the complaint by the complainant, is that the services of the OP were availed for consideration for purchase of "Sarvhitkari-Swami Apartments" situated at Santemajra Kharar District Mohali Punjab by the complainant, as the OP is Construction Company under the name of Sarvhitkari Swami Apartment. The OP intimated the complainant about the construction plan and also gave brochure, which enlisted the facilities, specifications, amenities, to be provided to complainant. The brochure is Annexure C-1. The OP is owner of the land and entered into agreement of sale with the complainant and OP No.2 is also builder, who is constructing the said project. The complainant was allotted Flat No.15-A First Floor, measuring 1f ² covered area in the said project for total amount of Rs.16 lacs. The agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 06.08.2012. The sale deed was to be executed on 30.08.2012. The complainant invested his life savings, apart from availing home loan from Bank of India, for buying this flat. The OPs promised that they had obtained all the necessary and requisite permission from the competent authorities for this purpose. As per Clause 5 of the agreement to sell dated 06.08.2012, the physical possession of the said property would be handed over to the complainant at the time of completion of bargain on execution of sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed in this case in favour of the complainant on 27.08.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that despite receipt of money, the OP has not delivered the possession of the flat to the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint praying that OPs be directed to complete the flat and the project in all respects and to pay the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- already paid to the complainant along with interest @ 24% p.a, besides payment of rent of Rs.1,81,500/- paid by the complainant, as rental expenses, Rs.5 lac, as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation. 

2.      We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also examined the record of the case at the admission stage of the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the brochure of Sarvhitkari Swami Apartment. Ex.C-2 is allotment letter dated 25.07.2012. Out of the total amount of Rs. 16 lac , amount received is of Rs.2 lac by OPs, balance amount Rs.14 lac and registration. Annexure C-3 is receipt of amount of Rs.2 lac by the OPs. Agreement of sell is Ex.C-4 on the record. Ex.C-5 is permission for revised plan. Ex.C-6 is receipt of fee regarding plan. Certificate of registration as promoter is also placed on the record. We find that sale deed has been already executed in favour of the complainant by the OPs on 27.08.2012. Copy of sale deed dated 27.08.2012 is placed on the record in this case. The sale deed contained recital that no amount is outstanding from the complainant and possession has been delivered to purchaser by the seller of the above apartment. This sale deed is duly signed by the complainant containing recital regarding the delivery of the possession by OPs. As per copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09  on the record, mutation No.8698 has been sanctioned in favour of the complainant regarding 8/4025 shares.

3.      From perusal of sale deed and copy of mutation, we find that agreement has been carried into effect between the parties in this case. The grievance of the complainant is that complainant is out of possession of the property. Once the sale deed has been executed and title has vested in the complainant and mutation thereof has been sanctioned in his name on the record and as such, the matter in dispute lies only before civil court. There are complex disputed facts, as to whether the possession has been delivered to the complainant or not. As per the sale deed, the possession has been delivered to the complainant by OPs. The complex facts are involved in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure by Consumer Fora. Even otherwise, appropriate remedy for the complainant is to file suit for possession on the basis of his title in the civil court only. We, thus, find that no ground is made to admit this complaint for proceeding further in the matter. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed in limine.

4.       Arguments in this complaint were heard on 16.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the complainant.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                            (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                                MEMBER

 

July  21,   2015.                                                             

(ravi)