DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.807 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  25.09.2017                                              Date of decision   :  24.09.2020

Dr. Jatinder Kaur D/o Sh. Rajinder Singh Sahni, resident of  House No. 393, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) – Developer of Housing Project by name ‘Sky Rock City Welfare Society’ through its President Sh. Navjeet Singh, registered office at SCO 672, Sector 70, Mohali.

2.     Shri Navjeet Singh, President of the Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Site Office, Sector 111-112, Near GCG College, Landran, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                               ……..Opposite Parties

                Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    None for the complainant.

                OPs Ex-parte.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the OPs in public pronouncements  disclosed that they proposed to develop a housing project named as ‘Sky Rock City Welfare Society’ in Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar (Mohali) with latest technology as an ideal housing colony.  The CC got attracted by the rosy picture shown by OPs, applied for the allotment of 100 sq. yards plot in the project of the OPs. The CC was registered as a member with R.No.6297 as per share certificate dated 13.04.2013.  The CC was given provisional allotment letter dated 13.04.2013 allotting Plot No.G-112 in the said project at a price of Rs.4500/- per sq. yard. As per the provisional allotment letter, the possession was to be handed over within 36 months thereof. The CC made the following payments to the OPs towards the price of the plot: 

        a)     10.03.2013                       Rs.   10,000.00

        b)     10.03.2013                       Rs. 3,37,000.00

        c)     10.03.2013                       Rs.    75,000.00

        d)     26.03.2013                       Rs. 1,75,000.00

        e)     15.03.2015                       Rs.5,22,500.00

        After making these payments, the CC became eligible  and could participate in the draw of lots held on 01.04.2015 and the CC was finally allotted plot No.435 vide allotment letter Ex.C-8. Thereafter the CC approached the office of the OP No.2 but to no avail. The CC visited the site but found that no development work has even been started at the site. On further enquiries, the CC came to know that OPs had got approval from GMADA for a project of 25 acres of land and OPs have booked plots/flats accordingly, but surprisingly the OPs could acquire 5 to 7 acres of land only.

                Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought direction against the OPs to immediately hand over the possession of the plot OR in the alternative to refund the deposited amount with interest @ 18% per annum from deposit till payment. The CC has also sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint of the CC is duly signed. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.

2.             On 20.12.2017 the CC informed the Commission that OP No.2 is lodged in Central Jail, Patiala. As such production warrants of Navjeet Singh was issued for 27.02.2018. On 27.02.2018 Shri Navjeet Singh was produced by the jail authorities and  one Shri Jagseer S. Jassi, Advocate also filed power of attorney on behalf of the OPs and the case was adjourned to 06.04.2018 for filing reply. However, on 06.04.2018 neither Navjeet Singh was produced by jail authorities nor Shri Jagseer Singh Jassi, Advocate appeared for the OPs and the case was adjourned for 11.05.2018 for filing reply by the OPs.  Thereafter one Shri Harkaran Singh, Advocate also filed memo of appearance on behalf of OPs and an application for striking defence of OPs was also filed by counsel for CC.  On 16.08.2018 Shri Atul Nathalia, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of OPs and last and final chance was given to the OPs for filing reply and also for filing reply to the application for striking defense of the OPs. Reply on behalf of OPs was filed on 29.08.2018 and the application filed by the CC for striking defence of the OPs was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2018 passed by this Commission  but that order was set aside vide orders dated 06.03.2019 passed in Revision Petition No. 73 to 76 of 11.12.2018  each by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in cases of  Sumi Dhodhi Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society & others by holding that as written statement has been filed by OPs beyond statutory period and as such that written statement  filed by the OPs ordered to be taken off the record. Being so no need to refer to contents of filed written statement of OPs.  Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the OPs and as such the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2019 passed by this Commission.

3.             In order to prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of the CC Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/3 alongwith various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and thereafter the evidence on behalf of the CC was closed.

4.             Since the entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OPs are already ex-parte, we feel, that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act, which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties.

6.             Since the OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte and has not come forward to contest the claim of the CC, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint, affidavit and documents attached with the complaint. We feel that the evidence led by the CC is cogent, reliable and trust worthy. Counsel for the CC suffered statement on 18.06.2019 to the effect that as the OPs are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot and as such CC is seeking refund of amount with interest and cost of litigation expenses. To the query of this Commission regarding deposit of total amount by the CC with the OPs, the CC has submitted affidavit dated 27.08.2019 Ex.CW-1/2 that she has paid a total amount of Rs.6,65,000/- with the OPs.    It is on the file that the OPs provided deficient services and adopted unfair trade practice because of non development of site with basic facilities of passages, sewerage and water works and as such the CC entitled to refund of deposited amount of Rs.6,65,000/- as there is violation of provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of PAPRA Act.

7.             Copy of share certificate Ex.C-1 has been produced by the CC to establish that the CC was declared as member of OP society. Copy of provisional allotment letter Ex.C-2 also produced on record to establish that tentative price of plot allotted to the CC was @ Rs.4,500/- per sq. yard i.e. Rs.4.50 lakhs. Plot No.G-112 in said project situated in Sectors 111-112 in Mohali was allotted to the CC through Ex.C-2. Plot allotment agreement also was executed by OPs in favour of the CC on 01.04.2015. Thus these documents establish that OPs allotted plot of 100 sq. yards to CC on price of Rs.4.50 lakhs.  Various receipts Ex.C-3 to C-7 proves that the CC had made payment of Rs.6,65,000/- to the OPs on various dates.. However, no development work carried out on the spot. Keeping in view the violation of Sections 3 and 5 of PAPRA Act committed by OPs in accepting amounts without sanctions from competent authorities, it is fit and appropriate to order for refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposit till payment. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab has directed refund of deposited amount in such like cases with interest @ 12% per annum in view of Section 12 of PAPRA Act read with Regulation 17 thereof and even Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through Revision Petition No.815 of 2018 titled as M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. Vs. Ms. Neeru Thakur has upheld those findings vide composite order dated 25.09.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.815 to 820 of 2018.

8.             Accordingly the present complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund to the CC the amount to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of various deposits till realisation. The OPs are further burdened to pay a consolidated compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to the CC. Compliance of this order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.

Announced

September 24, 2020

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member