Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/20/2017

Yogesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Bhardwaj, Adv.

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	21 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2017

 

1. Ashoo Tuli son of Sh.N.C. Tuli, resident of House No.26, Doctor’s Enclave, Stadium Road, GPO Distt. Patiala-147001.
2. Amandeep Singh son of Sh.Inderjit Singh, resident of House No.1649, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

1. PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 (India), through its Director
2. The Director, PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074.

              .... Opposite Parties

=======================================================

Complaint case No.	:	20 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2017

 

Yogesh Kumar Verma son of Sh.Dalip Chand, resident of House No.42, Cliffwood Terrace, East Rutherford, New Jersy-USA 07073, Presently residing at House No.34, Cliffwood Terrace, East Rutherford, New Jersy-USA 07073.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, , Chandigarh-160009 (India), through its Director.
2. The Director, PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074.

              .... Opposite Parties

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant(s).

                  

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

                By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. At the time of arguments, on 18.01.2017, it was agreed by Counsel for the complainants, that, in view of above, both the complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2.         Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.21 of 2017 titled as Ashoo Tuli and another Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants decided to purchase a plot from the opposite parties, in their project named ‘IREO HAMLET, Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, against cost of Rs.70,27,822/-, measuring 250.59 square yards. Allotment  letter in respect of the said plot was issued on 06.12.2011. Buyer’s Agreement was entered into between the parties on 27.02.2012. Possession was to be handed over within a maximum period of 42 months from the date of execution of the Agreement (24 months + 6 months grace period +12 months extended period), i.e. on or before 26.08.2015. The complainants continued to deposit amount towards cost of the said plot, as per chart shown at page number 2 of the complaint. Possession letter was offered on 06.05.2015. Under what circumstances, possession of the plot was accepted and sale deed was got executed, is depicted in complaint, in para nos.11, 12 and 13, which are reproduced hereunder:-

“11. That after issuing Possession Letter dated 06.05.2015, the opposite party No.1 & 2 forced and pressurized the Complainants to get the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed registered but the complainants refused for the same. The opposite party No.1 & 2 in order to escape from their liability to pay the amount deposited by the complainants and in order to fill up their lacunas, gave a proposal to the complainants that they will bear the expenses with regard to execution and registration of Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed despite knowing the fact that there was no development at the site.

12. That apart from this, the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 also offered more amount to the complainants in order to compensate them. The complainants got suspicious with regard to offer given by opposite party No.1 & 2 and they having left with no other alternative, insisted for visiting the spot before getting the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed done. But the representative of the opposite party No.1 & 2 declined for the same and suggested that they will visit the spot for final demarcation after the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed.

13. That the complainants under undue influence and having no other alternative and with heavy heart, agreed to the proposal given by the opposite party No.1 & 2 and got the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 28.08.2015 at their own expenses and the opposite party No.1 & 2 agreed to refund the amount of Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed afterwards. ……..”

3.         It is stated that possession of the plot was taken over and sale deed was got executed on 28.08.2015. It is further stated that possession of the plot was handed over under force and pressure exerted by the opposite parties. It is apparent on record that to compensate the complainants, it was promised by the opposite parties that they will bear expenses with regard to execution and registration of sale deed. It is further promised that some more amount will be offered to compensate the complainants. There was no development at the site. On the request made by the complainants, to take them to site for inspection of development, the opposite parties assured that they will be taken to the site, after executing the conveyance deed. It was further stated that in getting the sale deed executed, undue influence and force was exerted by the opposite parties upon the complainants. In para no.14 of the complaint, it is stated that after getting sale deed executed, opposite party no.2 refused to compensate the complainants, as agreed before execution thereof. Contents of para no.14 are reproduced hereunder:-

“14.  That the behavior and attitude of opposite party No.1 & 2 changed after executing the Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed and they refused to compensate the complainants as agreed by them before execution and registration of Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed. The complainants repeatedly requested and reminded the opposite party No.1 & 2 to compensate him as agreed by them before execution & registration of Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed registered but of no use. There is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 & 2”

4.         It is specifically stated that before getting sale deed executed, a promise was made by the opposite parties, to compensate the complainants, for loss caused to them, on account of non-development at the site. It is further stated that completion certificate was not available with the opposite parties, when possession was offered and sale deed was got executed. In para no.21, it is stated that sale deed was got executed by misleading the complainants. Stating as above, prayer has been made to direct the opposite parties, to pay an amount of Rs.25 lacs, towards mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1 lac.   
5.         On hearing Counsel for the complainants, at the admission stage, and also on perusal of the entire paper book, we are of the considered opinion that both the complaints need to be dismissed at the preliminary stage. Possession of the unit was offered to the complainants, within the agreed period. Thereafter, without raising any question, in terms of provisions of the Agreement, sale deed qua the plot, in question, was got executed by the complainants in their name. Thereafter, they became owners of the said property. If they had any grouse qua non-development at the site, it was their duty to object to it before execution of the sale deed and further it is on record that to compensate the complainants qua any deficiency in providing service, the expenses for registration of sale deed was born by the opposite parties.  It is also mentioned in the complaint, that some more amount was also paid to the complainants, to compensate them. If that is so, how they can now file a complaint and can raise claim for further grant of compensation, without making any case, as to what loss they have suffered; and how they are entitled to get an amount of Rs.25 lacs, towards mental agony and physical harassment, by way of filing this complaint. It is further stated that when getting sale deed executed, a promise was made with the complainant, by the opposite parties, to compensate them further. When that promise was made?; by whom it was made?; and where it was made?, it is not coming out from the complaint. It appears that if such promise was made, it might have been made, when the sale deed was executed at a place, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, as such, this complaint is not maintainable at Chandigarh.  Counsel for the complainants was advised to file this complaint before the appropriate Fora; however, he refused to do so.

                Furthermore, it is case of the complainants that they were pressurized, forced and undue influence was exerted on them, by the opposite parties, when sale deed was got executed. To prove such allegations, it is necessary to bring on record detailed evidence, which is not possible before this Commission, in summary proceedings. As such, no case is made out, to admit these complaints before this Commission.

6.         In view of above, both the complaints are dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs, being not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the complainants to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy available with them, if permissible under law. 
7.         Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected complaint file, referred to above.
8.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

18.01.2017

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

Rg.

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Complaint case No.	:	20 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	09.01.2017
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2017

 

Yogesh Kumar Verma son of Sh.Dalip Chand, resident of House No.42, Cliffwood Terrace, East Rutherford, New Jersy-USA 07073, Presently residing at House No.34, Cliffwood Terrace, East Rutherford, New Jersy-USA 07073.

……Complainant

V e r s u s

1. PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Corporate Office at SCO No.6-8, First and Second Floors, Sector 9-D, , Chandigarh-160009 (India), through its Director.
2. The Director, PUMA Realtors Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 (An IREO Group Company) having its Registered Office No.5, Dhanraj Chambers, 1^st Floor, Satbari, New Delhi-110074.

              .... Opposite Parties

Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the complainant(s).

                  

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

                Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.21 of 2017 titled as Ashoo Tuli and another Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and another this complaint has been dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs, being not maintainable. However, liberty has been granted to the complainants to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy available with them, if permissible under law. 

 

2.         Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing no.21 of 2017, be placed on this file.
3.           Certified copies of the main order, alongwith this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Sd/-                         Sd/-                                                 sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Rg.