ORDER M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is to the orders dated 01.06.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, ‘the State Commission’), in First Appeal Nos. 939/2015 to 942/2015, preferred by the Opposite Parties. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Opposite Parties and confirmed the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, “the District Forum”). 2. The District Forum in CC No.214/2013 vide its order dated 19.01.2015 directed the OPs 1 to 3 to pay ₹ 6,35,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of deposition, till realization, to the complainant, along with compensation of ₹ 2,200/- and ₹ 2,200/- towards litigation expenses. 3. The District Forum in CC No.212/2013 vide its order dated 21.03.2014 directed the OPs to refund an amount of ₹ 3,08,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of deposit, i.e., 25.07.2011, till the date of actual payment, to the complainant, along with compensation of ₹10,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses. 4. The District Forum in CC No.216/2013 vide its order dated 21.03.2014 directed the OPs to refund an amount of ₹ 6,35,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of deposit, i.e., 26.09.2011, till the date of actual payment, to the complainant, along with compensation of ₹10,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses. 5. The District Forum in CC No.213/2013 vide its order dated 21.03.2014 directed the OPs to refund an amount of ₹ 5,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of deposit, i.e., 25.07.2011, till the date of actual payment, to the complainant, along with compensation of ₹10,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses. 6. For the sake of convenience, RP 2891/2016 is taken as a lead case which has been filed against the order dated 01.06.2016 in Appeal No.939/2015 in the State Commission. 7. The facts material to the case are that the Complainant booked a plot with the Opposite Parties by paying an amount of ₹ 7,25,000/- and entered into an Agreement on 21.02.2008. The Complainant alleged that the Opposite Parties had not obtained the Change of Land Use (in short, “ the CLU”) from the State Government of Haryana and for that reason, the Sale Deed could not be executed in favour of the Complainant. It is the Opposite Parties, who, without obtaining the necessary permissions, executed the Agreement and sold the plots, which is an act of deficiency of service. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking refund of the amount paid, with interest, compensation and costs. It is observed in the impugned order that Opposite Party No.4, Mr. Pawan, had paid an amount of ₹ 90,000/- and was deleted from the array of Opposite Parties. 8. It is observed from the record that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 were set ex-parte before the District Forum. The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaints directing the Opposite Parties to refund the amounts paid less what has been paid by Opposite Party 4, with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of deposits till the date of realization, together with costs and compensation as stated above. 9. The State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum on the ground that the Complainant was justified in seeking refund of the amounts paid as there were no necessary permissions obtained by the Opposite Parties as on the date of execution of the Agreement. 10. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that ex-parte orders were passed against them in the District Forum and that they were never served with any notice. It is observed from the concurrent findings of both the fora below and the record filed, that the notices were indeed served on the Revision Petitioners herein and despite service of notices, they did not chose to appear before the District Forum and were rightly set ex-parte. 11. This Commission in Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., III (2007) CPJ 7 (NC), relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India, II (2000) CPJ I and observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the builder to collect money from the prospective buyers without obtaining the required permissions, such as Zoning plan, Layout Plan, etc. It is the duty of the Builder to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchaser. It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Parties did not obtain CLU at the time of sale of the plots in question, from the concerned authorities in the State Government of Haryana and, therefore, the Sale Deed could not be executed in favour of the Complainants. This act not only construes deficiency of service, but also falls under unfair trade practice, as defined under Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2 (1) (r) (1) (iv) reads as under : “2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (r) "unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely;— (1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which,— (iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have”. 12. Keeping in view the aforementioned reasons and the concurrent finding of fact by both the fora below that the subject plot did not have the relevant approval, and also the reasonable rate of interest, i.e., 9% p.a., which was awarded, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference in our limited revisional jurisdiction as envisaged by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. 13. In the result, these Revision Petitions are dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs. |
