Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/896/2019

Anil Kumar Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dewan Chand

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/896/2019
Date of Institution	:	30/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	21/04/2022

 

Anil Kumar Goyal aged about 61 years s/o Sh. Ram Rach Paul Goyal, resident of H.No.196, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office : IInd Floor, Dainik Bhaskar, Sector 25, Chandigarh (Pin – 160014) through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office : J-32, 1^st Floor, Najafgarh Road, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, India (Pin 110015) through its Director/ Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/897/2019
Date of Institution	:	30/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	21/04/2022

Anil Kumar Goyal aged about 61 years s/o Sh. Ram Rach Paul Goyal, resident of H.No.196, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Bathinda.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office : IInd Floor, Dainik Bhaskar, Sector 25, Chandigarh (Pin – 160014) through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office : J-32, 1^st Floor, Najafgarh Road, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, India (Pin 110015) through its Director/ Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

[3]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/898/2019
Date of Institution	:	30/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	21/04/2022

Priyanka daughter of Shri Jagjit Kumar, resident of House No.270, Patel Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab, India.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office : IInd Floor, Dainik Bhaskar, Sector 25, Chandigarh (Pin – 160014) through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office : J-32, 1^st Floor, Najafgarh Road, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, India (Pin 110015) through its Director/ Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vijay Mangla, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.896 of 2019 titled as Anil Kumar Goyal Vs. Nature Farms & Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
3.     Briefly stated allegations are, OP company advertised through pamphlets regarding developing agricultural land in village Darbaan Khaas, Tehsil & District Pathankot, Punjab for organic farming where it was going to develop canals, tubewells, organic farms and agricultural plots were to be given having facilities of canal water, tubewell water and approach to main road in a very designed manner. On the inducements given by the OP company, complainant paid an amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards purchase price of one acre agricultural land and executed a full payment cum sale agreement i.e. expression of interest cum agreement dated 2.9.2014. OPs represented that the land in question was free from all encumbrances, attachment, charges etc. Further, the OP undertook that it would obtain all kind of NOCs regarding change of land use, lay outs, necessary approvals and develop the same and thereafter register the sale deed and that till the sale deed was not executed, it would pay ₹2,28,000/- per year as rent (thekha) qua the land in question.  The OPs also undertook that in case the complainant did not want to retain land/plot at the end of 3^rd year, he can take back his deposited money.  The complainant many times asked the OPs for development at site and registration of sale deed, but, to no avail. Rather OP stopped payment of yearly rent since September 2017. Further the complainant came to know that the OP neither had obtained any permission/approvals from concerned authorities nor any development had been done at site.  Hence, complainant requested OPs to refund the deposited amount, but, to no effect.  Alleging that aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.    
4.     OPs did not appear despite service by way of publication in the newspaper, therefore, vide order dated 7.10.2021 of this Commission, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
5.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant in the present consumer complaint is that he invested an amount of ₹10,00,000/- towards purchase of one acre agricultural land to be developed by the OPs and executed full payment-cum-sale agreement i.e. expression of interest cum agreement dated 2.9.2014 (Annexure C-1) according to which if the customer does not want to retain the land at the end of three years from the first payment, he/she can sell back the same to the seller at the price of purchasing amount or the price as mutually agreed between the parties. It has been contended by the complainant that the amount of ₹2,28,000/- as lease rent, as agreed vide Annexure C-1, was paid to him by the OPs till 2017 and thereafter no lease rent in respect of the aforesaid agricultural land was paid by the OPs. 
8.     Pertinently, OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the OPs shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
9.     Admittedly, the complainant received the amount of ₹2,28,000/- per year till 2017.  As per allegations of the complainant, OPs have not obtained the requisite NOC, permissions, approvals etc. from the competent authority till date and no development has been done at the site in question as promised.  We are of the opinion that the OPs have illegally and wrongly charged the amount in question from the complainant without obtaining the required permissions. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. In this regard, reliance can be had on the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land.”

10.     We are of the considered view that a consumer is not expected to wait indefinitely for no fault on his/her part. The complainant has been harassed a lot by the OPs in accepting money from him without obtaining requisite permissions/ approvals from the competent authority, but, thereafter taking no steps to develop the area and execute the sale deed or to refund the amount.  Failure on the part of OPs to honour their commitments and most importantly non-appearing during the proceedings of the present case, proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. As such, complainant is entitled to refund of deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation for the harassment undergone by him.
11.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that all the consumer complaints deserve to be allowed. The same are accordingly partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

CC/896/2019

1. To refund ₹10,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 2.9.2014 till realization;
2. To pay ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation.

CC/897/2019

1. To refund ₹5,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 2.9.2014 till realization;
2. To pay ₹25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation.

CC/898/2019

1. To refund ₹10,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 2.9.2014 till realization;
2. To pay ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/04/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member