Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/451/2018

Smt.Surjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Preet Land Promoters & Developers Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Bansal

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                             RBT/CC/451/2018

CC No. 451 of 2018

                                                                             Date of Institution: 17.04.2018

                                                                             Date of Decision:    05.09.2022

 

Smt. Surjit Kaur W/O Sh. Jasbir Singh (Since Deceased Died On 11.04.2018)            Represented through her legal heirs:-       

(a)Sh. Jasbir Singh S/O Sh. Lachhman Singh (Husband)

     (b)Sh. Virender Pal Singh S/O Sh. Jasbir Singh (Son) 

(c)Ms. Balvinder Kaur W/O Sh. Rashpal Singh (Daughter)

     All Residents Of H No.314/86, Preet City, Sas Nagar, Mohali.

•  

                                                Versus

1. Preet Land Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Preet City) through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Persons, having its Site Office at Preet City, Sector-86, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.
2. Managing Director/Director, Preet Land Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd., (Preet City), having its Site Office at Preet City, Sector-86, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab.                                                …………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present:Ms. Rozy, Counsel for Complainant(through VC)

              Sh. K.S. Lang, Counsel for OPs (through VC)

Order by

Pushvinder Singh, President

1.                  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant/since deceased (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,61,000/- @ 18% per annum, as cost of 51 Sq. Yards area which has been provided less and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards physical and mental harassment. CC also seeks Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.
2.                   The CC stated that she was a resident of H. No. 314, Preet City, developed by Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd, Setor-86, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali. Earlier, CC having the joint family was residing in H. No.2248, Phase-X, SAS Nagar, Mohali and was searching for suitable 500 Sq. Yards plot to accommodate her family. CC alleged that she was allured by the OPs through various advertisements and booked a plot with the OPs project, bearing no.314 in Preet City (Regd. No. PLP 1321 (Tr. DK-482), Sector-86, SAS Nagar, Mohali, at a cost of Rs. 55,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,00,000/- cost of the said plot and Rs.15,00,000/- towards enhanced development charges. As per the demand of OPs, the CC paid a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- towards land cost vide receipt No. 2427, dated 19.12.2012 and paid another sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- being 50% of the enhanced development charges (out of total of Rs. 15,00,000/-), vide receipt No. 2428 dated 19.12.2012. Copies of both receipts are Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4. The remaining 50% of the EDC amounting to Rs. 7,50,000/- was later on paid at the time of handing over the possession of the plot in question vide receipt No. 3649 dated 15.07.2014 for Rs. 6,25,000/- and another receipt No. 3652 dated 16.07.2014 for Rs. 1,25,000/- (totalling Rs. 7,50,000/-).
3.                     CC further alleged that that the OPs/Company had been developing the different projects on the complete land under the two names i.e. "AB Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and "Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd." in the said Sector-86, SAS Nagar Mohali. CC alleged that there is a secret arrangement between both of them and in fact, the OPs had been working and running the project in the two names, for the purpose of their internal arrangement. CC alleged that the OPs allured the CC to book the plot with their company and proclaimed that the plot is available with all the modern facilities and amenities. Accordingly, CC booked a plot and OPs allotted the residential Plot No. 342, measuring 500 Sq. Yards to CC. Then OPs gave the possession of Plot No. 314 in their project by cancelling/changing the earlier allotted Plot No. 342.
4.                         CC alleged that the plot area was ad-measuring 449 Sq. Yards, instead of the allotted 500 Sq. Yards, i.e. the area was less by 51 Sq. Yards, though the price was charged for 500 Sq. Yards, by the OPs. The CC alleged that she spent huge amount for the construction of the house, though she was facing the difficulties due to non-availability of proper roads, electricity and water etc. and completed the construction of house in the year 2016. CC requested the OPs to provide the complete documents so that the electric meter may be got installed and CC also requested the OPs to provide her the documents for the purpose of obtaining the occupation certificate from the MC/GMADA but no such documents were provided by the OPs. CC alleged that CC had been receiving the unauthorized electricity and sewerage bill etc. CC requested to the OPs repeatedly to pay the amount of the 51 Sq. Yards. But the OP-company denied the claim of CC by referring Clause 5 of the terms and conditions that the plot area could have been reduced by 10-12%. Thereafter, the CC got issued a legal notice of demand dt. 30.01.2018 to the OPs but OPs neither took any action nor responded to CC.
5.                     Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and Sh. K.S. Lang, Adv appeared and filed reply/version on behalf of the OPs. In reply, OPs stated that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the present complaint is barred by limitation and CC concealed the facts from this Commission. OPs further stated that the answering OPs and AB Apartment are having their separate identity from each other and both are having no concern in this business. OPs stated that as per allotment letter the allottee has accepted the layout plan, which is tentative and is kept at the company’s office. He further agrees that the company may affect more variations, alterations, deletions in the layout plan if and when necessary. This may involve all or any of the change in position/location of plot, change in its number, size and dimensions etc.  So, OPs had changed the number and size of the plot of the CC as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. OPs admitted that some excess amount of the CC is pending against the OPs but the same is payable only after the deduction of physical possession charges of the CC’s plot along with other miscellaneous charges. The possession of the plot was given to the CC after her full satisfaction. OPs stated that it is totally false and fabricated that there is no facility of proper roads, electricity and water supply. Neither the bill of electricity issued to CC is higher side nor the bill of sewerage and electricity is unauthorized. Electricity charges along with other charges are pending against the CC. OPs further submitted that the development of the sector is on full swing rather in some portion the remaining work of the project is also on full swing. The OPs have developed the sector as per norms of GMADA.  OPs stated that CC did not come in the office of the OPs for any refund of her excess amount as alleged in the present complaint. OPs have not received any legal notice from the CC. OP denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.   
6.                   CC in her evidence has furnished her affidavit in support of the complaint reiterating the facts contained in the complaint as Ex.C-1/A and he also produced the copy of Application Form as Ex.C-1, copy of terms and conditions as Ex.C-2, copies of payment deposited receipts as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6, copy of handing over possession letter as Ex.C-7, copy of agreement for possession as Ex.C-8, Actual Physical Possession Letter as Ex.C-9, copy of Building Plan as Ex.C-10, copy of DPC Certificate letter  as Ex.C-11, copy of sub-meter electricity bill as Ex.C12, copy of letter written to OPs as Ex.C13, copy of legal notice as Ex.C-14. On the other hand OPs produced the evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.OP-1/A, copy of notice for payment as Ex.OP-1, copy of Sale/Possession Agreement as Ex.OP-2, copy of Sale Deed as Ex.OP-3, copy of letter written to OPs as Ex.OP-4, copy of declaration/undertaking as Ex. OP-5
7.                   We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.
8.                  Admittedly the CC agreed to book a plot with the OPs project bearing No.314 in Preet City, Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali at a cost of Rs.55,00,000/- i.e. Rs.40,00,000/- cost of the said plot and Rs.15,00,000/- towards enhanced development charges. Copy of application has been proved as Ex. C-1. Initially size of the plot was 500 Sq. Yards and when its possession was given to the CC it was 449 Sq. Yards. The CC has claimed the refund of the price of 51 Sq. Yards. The OPs have denied the claim of CC stating that it was agreed with the CC that the size of plot can be reduced from 10-12% for which the CC will have no objection/claim whatsoever. The CC has proved the copy of application for booking of the plot as Ex.C-1 and copy of terms and conditions as Ex.C-2. There is a term and condition no.5, where it is clearly mentioned that the size of the plot can be reduced from 10-12% for which the CC will have no objection/claim whatsoever. The terms and conditions as Ex.C-2 are duly signed by the CC/Surjit Kaur. The OPs have produced declaration/undertaking of CC/Surjit Kaur as Ex.OP-5 which was written on 21.10.2014 on the day when possession of the 449 Sq. Yards plot was given to the CC (copy of possession delivery letter as Ex.C-9). In the declaration/undertaking, it was clearly declared/undertaken by the CC that she is fully satisfied about the site, size, payments made in excess to it and also well-aware of pending issues. So, when the possession of plot was given to the CC it was 449 Sq. Yards and it was agreed by the CC that she was satisfied with the size and payments made in excess to the OPs. At this stage, CC cannot be allowed to claim refund of any amount from the OPs.
9.                    The complaint filed by CC also barred by limitation as the limitation is only two years to file the complaint from the date when the cause of action arose to the CC. The possession of the plot(449 Sq. Yards) was delivered to the CC on 21.10.2014 and on that day the declaration/undertaking was also signed by the CC. On 21.10.2014, CC came to know that the plot of 449 Sq. Yards is given to her so on that day the cause of action arose and the CC should have filed the complaint within 2 years from 21.10.2014. Hence, the complaint is clearly barred by limitation which was filed on 19.04.2018.
10.                      In view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within a specific period as provided by the statute due to rush of work and large pendency. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back to the District Consumer Commission , Mohali for consignment.

Pronounced:-

     05.09.2022                                                      

       

                                                                      (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                     President

 

 

 

    (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                                     Member

 

 

               

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member