DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:312 of 2011 Date of Inst:19.07.2011 Date of Decision: 09.03.2012 - Sh. Akash Verma son of Sh. A. K. Verma resident of E-24, Ambuja Colony, Village Daburjee, P.O. Lodhimajra, Distt. Ropar (Punjab).
- Sh. Arun Kumar son of Sh. R. K. Prasad resident of E-24, Ambuja Colony, Village Daburjee, P.O. Lodhimajra, Distt. Ropar (Punjab).
---Complainants. VERSUS - M/s Silver City Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. Office # 89, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.
- M/s Silver City Housing and Infrastructure Ltd., through its Manager Accounts Mr. Raj Kumar, Silver City – Derabassi, MC Zirakpur, Chandigarh – Ambala Highway (N.H.22), Distt. Mohali, Punjab.
---Opposite Parties. QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER PRESENT: Sh. A. K. Jaiswal, Advocate for the complainants. None for the opposite parties. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Akash Verma and his father Sh. Arun Kumar Verma have has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.10,57,500/- along with interest 15% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment; ii) Pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. iv) Appoint Local Commissioner to give his report about the status of construction in respect of the flat allotted to the complainant; v) Award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The case of complainants is that OPs floated a Housing Scheme for allotment of residential flat/Apartments at Silver City, Dera Bassi, Patiala. The complainants being interested to purchase the residential apartment, applied for the allotment of a flat (Category A) on 6th Floor under the said Scheme. He paid a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- at the time of booking, as earnest money, vide Receipt No.2509 dated 11.01.2007. He was allotted Flat No.187F with car parking. The total cost of the flat was Rs.19,30,000/-. An agreement dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure C-2) was also executed between the parties. Subsequently, on 10.02.2007, the complainant paid the first installment of Rs.3,07,500/- with OP as per the payment plan. The complainant wrote letter dated 25.05.2007 to the OPs enquiring about the present status of the construction but nothing was heard till 19.01.2008. It was on 19.01.2008, the complainant was informed by the OPs that the Government of Punjab, Department of Science and Technology, Environment and Non-Conventional Energy vide their notification dated 7.08.2007 and that there was no impediment to resume the construction work at the site. Therefore, on 12.11.2008, the complainants paid the second installment of Rs.5,12,500/- to the OPs. In all the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- with OPs. It has been pleaded by the complainants that the construction of the flat was to be completed by 30.04.2008 but OP failed to complete the construction of the apartments for the reasons best known to it. According to the complainants, the construction work was not started by OPs for a long period and consequently, he wrote letter dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure C-13) to the Ops requesting them to refund the deposited amount along with interest but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainants served a legal notice dated 05.04.2011 (Annexure C-14) but to no effect. According to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, it has been admitted that the complainant had applied for allotment of the apartment and he deposited Rs.10,25,000/-. According to OPs, the construction of the flat was not completed due to CWP No.18632 of 2005 pending before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 30.01.2007 vide which the notification dated 17.01.2006 of Punjab Pollution Control Board was stayed. It has further been pleaded that the Punjab Pollution Control Board has permitted for construction vide its letter dated 19.09.08 subject to decision of the CWP No.18632 of 2005 pending before the Hon’ble High Court. It has further been pleaded that the complainant is a defaulter and failed to deposit the installment as per the payment plan despite repeated requests. It has further been pleaded that the construction was not started due to the reasons beyond the control of OPs. In these circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint qua them deserves dismissal. 4. As on the date of final hearing i.e.05.03.2012, none was present on behalf of OPs, therefore we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even in the absence of OPs. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and perused the record and gone through the documents very carefully. 5. The only question to be determined in the case is about the entitlement of the complainants for refund of Rs.10,25,000/- which was paid by them for the allotment of the residential apartment. Admittedly, the construction of the flats was stopped due to above said CWP pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Admittedly, OPs failed to refund the deposited amount of the complainants despite their request and service of legal notice. 6. Admittedly, the construction of the flat has not been completed and possession of the flat has not been delivered to the complainant so far. The complainants cannot be forced to wait for the delivery of possession for an unlimited period. So failure to refund the amount despite non-completion of the construction work within the stipulated period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 7. The case of the OPs is that the construction of the flats could not completed due to the long processing time taken by various Government Departments for giving approvals as required for development of the project. In our view, inviting applications without getting the necessary approvals from the Government amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as has been held in the case of Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., III(2007) CPJ-7 (NC). 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to refund to the complainants a sum of Rs.10,25,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of respective deposits. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.10,25,000/- to the complainants along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till actual realization besides costs of litigation of Rs.7,000/-. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 9th March 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.312 of 2011 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 05.03.2012. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 09.03.2012 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
