Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/321/2020

Sohan Lal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sky Rock City Welfare Society - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Singh Jagdeva

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sohan Lal Gupta s/o Paras Ram Gupta age 64 r/o H.No.5265-A, Sector 38, West, Chandigarh.

          ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), SAS Nagar Mohali through its President Navjeet Singh, President, Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Site Office 111-112, Near CGC College, Landran, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.      Navjeet Singh, President, Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), through its President Navjeet Singh,  Sky Rock City Site Office 111-112, Near CGC College, Landran, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

          (Currently lodged in District Jail Ropar with a prayer to be served through Jail Superintendent District Jail, Ropar).

          …. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  

SMT.SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

Argued by:-

                   Sh.Nirmal Singh Jagdeva, Advocate for complainant

                   OPs exparte.

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           By this common order, we propose to dispose of 05 (Five) connected consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved. The particulars of the cases and the amount deposited by the complainant (s) are as under:-

2.           The facts are gathered from C.C. No.321/2020- Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another.
3.           Brief facts of the case are as alleged by the complainant are that he applied in the housing scheme of the OPs vide his application dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure C-1) along with Rs.10,000/- (Annexure C-2) and in lieu thereof he was issued share certificate reflecting his membership No as 2977 for allotment of 150 sq. yards plot @ Rs.11000/- per sq. yard, total amounting to Rs.16.50 lacs excluding EDC/IDC charges.  As per clause 5  ((Annexure C-3) of the terms and conditions, the possession was to be offered within two years from the date of registration.  As per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions, if the applicant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, then he will be refunded the entire amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. on requisition.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8.35 lacs to the OPs vide Annexures C-2, C-4 & C-5 i.e. more than 50% of the price. However, no provisional allotment letter and agreement in respect of the plot was executed by the OPs in favour of the complainant.  Subsequently, it came to the notice of the complainant from the website of the GMADA that the licence of the OPs had been cancelled by the GMADA on 07.05.2018. It has been averred that the OPs have not even started the basic infrastructure in the area and the OPs do not have the requisite permission/license to develop the colony in the year 2010-2011 when they collected the money from the general public.  It has further been alleged that whatever land they have i.e. 7.5 acres is now under attachment and has been handed over to the plot owners as per the order of fora. It has further been averred that the OPs have nothing to offer to the complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
4.           Despite due service through registered post, the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were  ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.11.2022.
5.           The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.
7.           Perusal of the record reveals that the OPs despite receipt of amount of Rs.8.25 lacs as well as Membership Amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant towards a 150 sq. yards residential plot in their project vide Ann.C-2, C-4 & C-5, failed to either issue allotment letter or Plot Buyer’s Agreement to the complainant.  The OPs also failed to develop the project and deliver the possession of the booked plot in question to the complainant, having all basic amenities, within a reasonable time, so the complainant/purchaser cannot be compelled to keep on waiting indefinitely that too even after passing of more than 12 years since the year of booking i.e. 2011 till June, 2023, when the case has been reserved for orders.  It is evident that the hard-earned money of the complainant is in the possession of the OPs since long.

                         It is settled law by 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: “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.

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.342 of 2014 titled as “Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Karnail Singh & Ors.”, decided on 25.07.2014 has observed: “The appellants should have given firm date of handling over the possession at the time of taking the booking amount itself.  By not indicating the true picture with regard to their project to the respondents, the appellants induced them to part with their hard earned money, which also amounts to unfair trade practice.”

         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: - Moreover, 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. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

8.         Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties to collect the money before getting all the necessary approvals for the project; not issuing allotment letter or executing plot buyer’s agreement and not giving the confirm date of handing over possession of the plot in question even after passing of 12 years long time, indeed proves deficiency in service on the part of OPs and their indulgence in unfair trade practice, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant but also caused him immense harassment & mental agony.  The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the plot allotted to him and he is entitled to seek the refund of the amount along with compensation. Besides this, the evidence led by the complainant gone unrebutted and uncontroverted.
9.         Similar facts have been pleaded in other connected complaints and similar evidence has been led in them.  Therefore, in all the connected cases, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved.
10.           Hence, the present complaint along with the connected deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties.          Accordingly, the present complaint alongwith the connected complaints are allowed qua the OPs.
11.         In C.C. No.321/2020- Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund a sum of 8,35,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its actual payment to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

12.         In  C.C. No.593/2020- Pawan Kumar Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund a sum of 23,75,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its actual payment to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

13.           In C.C.No.689/2021- Anupama Verma Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund a sum of 19,80,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its actual payment to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing her immense mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

14.           In C.C.No.690/2021- Amita Verma Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.15,85,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its actual payment to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing her immense mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

15.           In C.C.No.691/2021- Radhey Sham Verma Vs. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) and Another, the OPs are directed as under:-

1. To refund a sum of 19,80,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the respective dates of deposit till its actual payment to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing her immense mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

16.          The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.25,000/- in each case, apart from the above awarded amount.
17.           Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
18.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.