Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/817/2022

MULKH RAJ CHANDLA AGED 72 YEARS W/O SH KHUSHI RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SISWAN PARADISE PBT. LTD. A UNIT OF EMERGING INDIA HOUSING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTO - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY

19 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	817/2022
Date of Institution	:	13.12.2022
Date of Decision	:	19.04.2024

 

                                       

               

Mulkh Raj Chandla, Aged 72 years, W/o Sh. Khushi Ram, R/o House No.464/2, Sector 45-A, U.T., Mob.9530760736 Chandigarh.

...Complainant 

Versus

 

1.     Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., a Unit of Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., Corporate office:-SCO 46-47, First Floor Sector 9-D, Chandigarh 160009 through its Director/ Authorised Signatory Sh. Saife Kumar.

2^nd Address:- Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., SCO No.28-30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Director Shaife Kumar.

2.     Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Director of Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., A unit of Emerging India Housing Corporation Private Limited, SCO 46-47, 1st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

2^nd  Address :- Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., SCO No.28-29-30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh  through its Director Gurdeep Singh Sidhu.

3.     Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., A Unit of Emerging India Housing Corporation Private Limited, SCO 46-47, 1^st  Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through Lakhwinder Singh, Authorized Signatory of Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd.,

2^nd  Address :- Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., SCO No.28-29-30, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh  through Lakhwinder Singh, Authorized Signatory.

4.     Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sidhu, Director of Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd.,  A unit of Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., R/o House No.208, Sector-9, Chandigarh-110009.

….Opposite Party(s)

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Sh.Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, Counsel for complainant OPs exparte.

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019(as amended up-to-date) pleading therein that the complainant booked a cottage farm/plot measuring 605 sq. yards in the project of the OPs known as “Siswan Paradise” situated at Village Mirzapur, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali vide application No.73395, SSWP-703 by paying Rs.4.37,500/-  against receipts (Annexures C-1 to C-5).  The possession was assured to be delivered on or before 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the OPs allotted the plot vide Annexure C-6 to the complainant.  The OPs have also executed the sale deed dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure C-7) in favour of the complainant.  It has further been averred that the OPs have not taken any permission from the GMADA/PUDA nor they have got CLU for selling the plots.  Subsequently, the complainant sought the refund of the deposited amount along with interest by serving the OPs with the legal notice dated 06.11.2022 but the same has not been refunded so far. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         Despite due service through publication, the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.09.2023.
3. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents including the written submissions.
4. In exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.  Annexures C-1 to C-5 are the copies of the receipts/cheques vide which the complainant made the payment of Rs.4,37,500/- to the OPs. Annexure C-6 is the copy of the certificate vide which the complainant was allotted a cottage farm measuring 605 sq. yards in the draw of lots held on 14.06.2012 vide application No.73395 and he was allotted preference /docket No.SSWP-703. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of the sale deed dated 25.10.2012 in respect of the land in question executed in his favour. The complainant has specifically deposed in the affidavit that the plot(s) were sold/marketed by the OPs without obtaining any license(s)/approval(s) from the competent authorities/GMADA and they have not taken the permission from the concerned authorities for selling the units/floors.  The OPs have failed to deliver the possession of the unit in question complete in all respects to the complainant so far.

                The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:-

        “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation.
6. It may be stated here that the OPs did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference that they have nothing to contradict in defence against the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted & un-controverted.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs who are not in a position to develop the project has no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant. The OPs are, thus, proved deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint is partly allowed qua the OPs. The OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,37,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from respective dates of its deposit till the date of its actual realization, subject to the condition that after receipt of the above awarded amount, the complainant shall be legally bound to execute registered Sale Deed in respect of the plot in question in favour of the OPs-Company on account of receiving sale consideration from them.  
9. This order be complied with by the OPs, within 90 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
10.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 19.04.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER