DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.687 of 2016

                                                 Date of institution:  14.10.2016                                                     Date of decision   :  01.03.2018

Harpreet Singh son of Gurbachan Singh & Jyoti wife of Sh. Hapreet Singh resident of House No.1506-B, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.

…….Complainants

Vs

1.     M/s. Sky Rock Cooperative Housing Society, SCO 671-672, Level-1, Sector 70, Mohali through its President.

2.     Shri Navjit Singh, President M/s. Sky Rock Cooperative Housing Society, SCO 671-672, Level-1, Sector 70, Mohali.

                                                                ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri J.S. Bains, counsel for complainant.

                OPs ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainants after becoming members of OP society by paying membership fee agreed to purchase residential plot measuring 200 sq.  yards in Sky Rock City Welfare Society project at Sector 111-112, Mohali. Application dated 28.06.2011 was duly filled and thereafter agreement was arrived at. Complainants kept on making remaining payments as per schedule.  Total amount of Rs.15,04,000/- claims to be paid by complainants to OPs, but despite that OPs have not delivered the possession of said plot to complainants, despite the fact that the same was to be delivered within two years from the date of registration i.e. by  27.06.2013. Complainants got knowledge as if PUDA neither issued license to OPs and nor approvals from GMADA for development of site got by OPs. Physical possession of the plot not handed over to complainants till date despite repeated requests and that is why this complaint for seeking refund of the paid amount of Rs.15,04,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Litigation costs of Rs.26,000/- more claimed.

2.             OPs filed reply jointly for claiming as if request of complainants for refund is pre mature because requisition was submitted on 11.08.2016 as per case of complainants themselves, albeit terms and conditions provide for refund after period of three years from the date of requisition. Terms and conditions further provide that in case complainants failed to make payments as per schedule, then membership of complainants liable to be cancelled. Similar view has already been taken in FA No.985 of 2015 titled as Sky Rock City Welfare Society Vs. Kanta Devi and also in FA No.560 of 2015 titled as Romesh Garg Vs.  Sky Rock and others by Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission. Complainants for earning profit applied for plot for speculative purposes because they were aspiring to sell the plot at premium, as and when same becomes available, on fetching of good price. Allotment of the site was to be made to complainants on deposit of 90% of the amount only.

3.             Complainants to prove their case tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-8 and thereafter closed evidence. On the other hand OPs failed to produce any evidence. Rather none appeared for OPs regularly since 07.04.2017 and as such OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 21.02.2018.

4.             Written arguments not submitted but oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainants alongwith contents of application form Ex.C-1 establishes that complainants became members of OP society and thereafter OP society issued terms and conditions of payment schedule alongwith other terms. Ex.C-3 is receipt produced to show as if complainants deposited Rs.4,00,000/- with OP society on 12.06.2012 and photocopies of  six other receipts shows that amounts of Rs.2,91,000/-; Rs.2,10,000/-; Rs.1,98,000/-; Rs.5,000/-; Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- were deposited with OPs on 16.03.2012; 25.04.2012; 10.06.2011; 10.06.2011; 27.10.2011 and 08.07.2011 respectively. So complainants able to prove that they have deposited Rs.15,04,000/- in all with the OPs out of total sale consideration amount. As approvals for carrying forward the project in question not obtained by OPs and as such they are not in a position to deliver possession of the residential plot in question and as such certainly on account of inability of OPs to perform their part of the contract, complainants entitled for refund of paid price amount. Clause-4 of terms and conditions printed on Ex.C-2 lays that possession of the plot to be handed over physically not later than two years of registration/requisition. That registration took place of complainants as members on 07.04.2012 is a fact borne from the share certificate and as such possession virtually was to be delivered by 06.04.2014. However, project in question has not been started for want of sanctions from PUDA or GMADA and as such OPs virtually retained the deposited amount illegally. Perusal of receipts of payments referred above itself reveals that OPs professed as if the Sky Rock is PUDA approved project, but in fact this is not the position and as such virtually OPs misrepresented the complainants in that respect. That amounts to unfair trade practice and as such complainants entitled for refund of the paid amount, but in view of request for refund made by complainant through legal notice Ex.C-4 served through postal receipts Ex.C-5 and C-6 alongwith request letter dated 08.05.2015 Ex.C-7 served through postal receipt Ex.C-8, entitlement of complainants for refund become with effect from the date of complaint namely 14.10.2016. As the amount retained illegally by OPs and as such refund with interest @ 8% per annum is appropriate by keeping in view Clause-4 of Ex.C-2, which provides that in case complainants or any applicant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, then refund of the entire paid amount with interest @ 8% per annum will take place after three years from the date of requisition.  Condition of refund after 3 years of requisition is harsh in this case because the project in question never started after getting requisite approvals by OPs deliberately for preventing persons like complainants of enjoying their hard earned money and as such in view of harshness and oppressiveness of this condition, the same cannot be given effect to.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed with direction to the OPs to refund the received amount of Rs.15,04,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from the date of filing of complaint namely 14.10.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

March 01, 2018.                                                         (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member