DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.423 of 2016
Date of institution: 14.07.2016 Date of decision : 11.10.2017
Eka Nath Neupane son of Late Shri Gurudutt, House No.620, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Mohali. The Sky Rock City Cooperative House Building Society, SCO No.26, First Floor, Phase-2, Mohali.
2. The Managing Director, M/s. Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Mohali. The Sky Rock City Cooperative House Building Society, SCO No.26, First Floor, Phase-2, Mohali
(2nd Address – M/s. Sky Rock City Welfare Society Mohali. The Sky Rock City Cooperative House Building Society, Sector 111-112, Landran Road, Mohali).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person. .
None for the Opposite Parties.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Eka Nath Neupane has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant got booked a plot measuring 100 sq. yards @ Rs.9,000/- with the OP on 21.11.2011 by paying membership fee of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter the complainant made payment of Rs.2,25,000/- to the OPs towards cost of the plot vide cheque dated 20.06.2012. More than four years have passed but till date the plot has not been allotted to the complainant. The complainant visited the OPs many a times and he was assured that the plot would soon be allotted but in vain. On 01.04.2016 the complainant submitted an application with the OPs for refund of amount of Rs.2,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% but the OPs flatly refused to accept the application and told the complainant that no money would be refunded as the refund is beyond the terms and conditions of membership of the society.
Hence the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund him the deposited amount of Rs.2,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum; to pay him Rs.1.50 lakhs as compensation for mental trauma and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The OPs in the written statement have pleaded that as per condition No.4 of agreed terms and conditions, the complainant shall be liable for refund only after a period of three years from the date of requisition and prior to requisition if the complainant fails to make his scheduled payment as per condition No.9, his membership can be cancelled due to non adherence of terms and conditions. Thus the complaint is premature and the cause of action if any arose to the complainant on 01.04.2019 for refund of his amount as he has made request for refund of the amount on 01.04.2016. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of receipt Ex.C-1; refund letter Ex.C-2; newspaper cutting Mark-A; application form Ex.C-3; terms and conditions Ex.C-4; letter Ex.C-5 and status of the license granted by GMADA to the OP Ex.C-6. The OPs did not lead any evidence inspite of availing many opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the OPs was closed by order on 02.08.2017.
5. The complainant has submitted that he booked a plot in the project of the opposite parties by paying Rs.10,000/-, as membership fee, vide receipt dated 21.11.2011. Thereafter he deposited Rs. 2,25,000/- with the opposite parties, vide receipts dated 01.06.2012 Ex.C-1 including the above amount. The possession of the plot was to be handed over physically not later than two years from the date of registration/requisition as per terms and conditions Ex.C-4, but the opposite parties have failed to develop the plot/project or to deliver the possession of the plot to him. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the complainant. Undisputedly, the complainant booked a plot of 100 sq.yds. with the opposite parties, by paying Rs.10,000/-, as membership fee vide receipt dated 21.11.2011. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- towards sale consideration of the plot to the OPs vide receipt dated 01.06.2012 As per condition No.5 of terms and conditions Ex.C-4, the possession of the plot was to be delivered not later than two years of the registration/requisition. The registration date of the plot was 21.11.2011; meaning thereby that the possession of the plot was to be delivered by 20.11.2013, but the opposite parties have failed to complete their project and to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within that period.
7. It is also relevant to mention here that a number of cases have been filed against these very opposite parties in the this Forum as well as before the Hon’ble State Commission, in which it has been abundantly proved that the opposite parties have no requisite licences/ permissions/approvals from the competent authorities for developing their project. Thus, the opposite parties have illegally pocketed the hard earned money of the various consumers, without completing their project and they have been litigating in various courts against this builder. As per section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with section 3 of the PAPRA. As per section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission, as they failed to lead any evidence. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. There is no evidence or pleading on record on behalf of the opposite parties in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA. Further, as per Section 12 of the PAPRA, if the builder fails to deliver possession of the plot/apartment by the specified date, then the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest. As per Rule 17 of the “Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment.”
8. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount received from the complainants-buyers was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per Section 9 of PAPRA and we wonder where that amount had been going. The opposite parties are not to play the game at the cost of others. When it insists upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, it is to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. Thus, the delay in not delivering the possession of plot within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainants are to be suitably compensated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the plot in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of plot and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and Rules and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainants to book the plot, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment. In these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by them, along with interest and suitable compensation. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a latest decision in Ms. Sneh Sood Vs. M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 decided on 23.02.2017 has ordered refund of the deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,35,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Thirty Five thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts, till the actual date of refund. We also find that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 11.10.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
