DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:85 of 2011] Date of Institution : 16.02.2011 Date of Decision : 16.01.2012 ----------------------------------------------- Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chhabra son of Sh. Kesar Dass resident of House No.63, Rajiv Puram, Phoosgarh Road, Karnal. ---Complainant. (VERSUS) M/s. Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd., through its Managing Director, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160008. ---Opposite Party. [Complaint Case No:156 of 2011] Date of Institution : 05.04.2011 Date of Decision : 16.01.2012 ----------------------------------------------- Mrs. Shivani Kaila wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar resident of House No.159, Shivala Colony, Amritsar. ---Complainant. (VERSUS) M/s. Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160008. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh,Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. By this common order, we are disposing of two connected complaint cases, as detailed below, as both the complaint cases are having same controversy as well as similar question of facts and law. 1. | CC No.85 of 2011 | Ramesh Kumar Chhabra | Vs. | M/s Shalimar Estates Pvt Ltd. | 2. | CC No.156 of 2011 | Shivani Kaila | Vs. | M/s Shalimar Estates Pvt Ltd. |
2. The facts are being taken from the Complaint Case No.85 of 2011 – Ramesh Kumar Chhabra Vs. M/s Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. 3. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chhabra has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the opposite party be directed to :- i) Get the registration of the allotted plot as per Sale Agreement dated 30.3.2002 in the name of the complainant; ii) pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony. iii) pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. iv) award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit. 4. The case of complainant is that in response to an advertisement made by the opposite party, he applied for allotment of a plot measuring 150 Sq. Yards i.e.6 Marlas in Phase-I of Shalimar Estates. The said application was accepted by the opposite party and it allotted Plot No.130 measuring 150 Sq. Yards i.e.6 Marlas in Phase-I at the proposed Shalimar Estates in Village Naggal. An agreement (Annexure C-4) was executed between the parties on 30.3.2002 regarding the sale of the said plot. As per the terms of the said agreement, opposite party agreed to sell the above said plot to the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,39,725/-. A sum of Rs.34,931.25Ps was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement whereas the remaining amount of Rs.1,04,793.75Ps was to be paid in six installments of Rs.17,465.63Ps each along with interest as per the details given in Para No.3 of the agreement. According to the complainant, he paid the said installments regularly and thereby paid a total sum of Rs.1,99,115/- (copies of receipts are Annexures C-1, C-3, C-5 to C-10 respectively). As per the agreement, the last date fixed for registration was 19.1.2008 and the possession of the plot was to be given within five years of the date of allotment. 5. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that despite the fact that the complainant has already paid the entire sale consideration of the said plot and the period of more than five years has expired from the date of allotment, neither the opposite party has executed the Sale Deed in favour of the complainant nor the possession of the said plot has been handed over to him. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 24.9.2010 upon the opposite party. The opposite party was approached many times for seeking possession, and transfer of the plot in his favour but to no effect. 6. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 7. In the written statement filed by opposite party, the facts regarding execution of the agreement for the sale of Plot No.130 measuring 150 Sq. yards i.e.6 Marlas in Phase-I at the proposed Shalimar Estates at Village Naggal for Rs.1,39,725/-has been admitted. It has also been admitted that the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.1,99,115/-. According to the OP, the Government of Haryana has wrongly lodged criminal proceedings against the opposite party for developing Shalimar Estates. The OP has challenged the said act of the Government by way of Civil Writ Petition No.2437 of 2003 in case titled ‘Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others’. On 13.2.2003, a Division Bench consisting Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Khehar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal stayed the demolition and dispossession. Later on, the said writ petition was admitted for hearing and it was ordered that the stay shall continue. According to the opposite party, the matter is still subjudice and the writ petition has not been decided so far. In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, the possession could not be delivered in time. Thus, according to the opposite party, non delivery of possession is for the reasons beyond its control and OP is still ready and willing to deliver the possession after the decision of the writ petition. In these circumstances, according to the opposite party, it is not in a position to deliver the possession and as such, the complaint deserves dismissal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It is the admitted case of the parties that the opposite party had agreed to sell Plot No.130 measuring 150 Sq. Yards i.e. 6 Marlas Phase-I at the proposed Shalimar Estates at Village Naggal for Rs.1,39,725/- and the complainant has already paid the sale consideration of the plot. It is also admitted case of the parties that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the possession was to be delivered within five years from the date of allotment, which has not been delivered so far and even the internal development work has not been completed. 10. The case of the opposite party is that that the Government of Haryana has lodged criminal proceedings against the opposite party for developing the said Shalimar Estate and the opposite party has challenged the said action of the Government of Haryana by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2437 of 2003 in case titled ‘Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others’. The opposite party further submitted that it is still ready and willing to execute and get registered sale deed of the plot in question in favour of the complainant but on account of stay granted by the High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, it could not be done. It is further submitted that as and when the said stay was vacated, OP shall execute the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant. 11. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the controversy involved in this case, has already been settled by the Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in First Appeal No.255 of 2011 titled ‘Vinod Kumar Vs. Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd.’ wherein the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission has directed the opposite party – Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd. to execute and get registered the sale deed in favour of the complainant, in respect of the plot allotted to him apart from compensation and costs of litigation. 12. In the present case, Annexure C-4 is the sale agreement dated 30.3.2002, which was executed between the parties. As per Clause-4 of this agreement, the sale deed was to be executed in respect of the plot in question by 19.1.2008. Further, as per Clause-5, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 5 years from the date of allotment i.e. 19.1.2002. The complainant has thus complied with all the terms and conditions of the sale agreement, referred to above. However, nothing has been placed on record by the opposite party to reveal as to why the sale deed could not be executed and got registered in favour of the complainant on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party. By not executing the sale deed, in terms of the agreement of sale, the opposite party was grossly deficient in rendering service. 13. Further, as per the Agreement C-4, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 19.1.2008. Admittedly, the sale deed has not been executed and got registered in favour of the complainant till date. The complainant requested the opposite party a number of times to execute and get registered the sale deed but it paid no heed. Despite the fact that opposite party retained the amount paid by the complainant towards the price of the plot for a period of more than 3 ½ years from 19.1.2008, it has failed to execute and get registered the sale deed. There is no stay against the opposite party, which could prevent it from executing and getting the sale deed registered. Thus, the complainant has suffered great mental agony and harassment because of non-execution and registration of the sale deed in his favour for such a long period, for which he needs to be compensated. 14. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the opposite party: - (i) to execute and get registered the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the plot in question. (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment. (iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 15. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. C.C.NO.156/2011 titled as Ms. Shivani Kaila Vs. M/s. Shalimar Estates Pvt. Ltd. Similar facts are involved in this complaint and similar evidence has been led by the parties. Even the version of OP in the written statement is identical as in the case of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chhabra. The only difference is as regards the plot number allotted to the complainant, which in the present case is 92. So, similar relief is granted in this complaint case bearing No.156 of 2011, to the complainant as under: - “(i) to execute and get registered the sale deed, in favour of the complainant, in respect of the plot in question. (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment. (iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.” 16. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th January, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.85 of 2011 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 11.01.2012. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 16.01.2012 Member President Member
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:156 of 2011] Date of Institution : 05.04.2011 Date of Decision : 16.01.2012 ------------------------------------------------ Mrs. Shivani Kaila wife of Sh. Ramesh Kumar resident of House No.159, Shivala Colony, Amritsar. ---Complainant. (VERSUS) M/s. Shalimar Estates (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, SCO No.110-111, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh-160008. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh,Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT For the reasons stated in the order of even date passed by this Forum in Complaint Case No.85 of 2011 – Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chhabra Vs. M/s Shalimar Estate Pvt. Ltd., this complaint is accepted. A copy of that order is placed on the record, which shall be deemed to form a part of this order. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 16th January, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
