DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1292 of 2018
Date of institution: 14.12.2018 Date of decision : 02.12.2021
Sunil Jand son of Suraj Parkash, resident of Housed No.232, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. The Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Banur Road, Backside C.G.C. College, Landran, Sector 111-112, Mohali through its CEO & Owner.
2. Shri Navjeet Singh, CEO & Owner, Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Banur Road, Backside C.G.C. College, Landran, Sector 111-112, Mohali.
……..Opposite Parties
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri P.S. Walia, counsel for the OPs..
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 to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC became member of the OP society, by paying membership fee of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.2590 dated 20.06.2011. The CC as a member of the society booked 100 sq. yards plot at a total price of Rs.10,50,000/- with the OPs. The CC paid a total sum of Rs.10,30,000/- to the OPs on different dates. At the time of booking, the OPs assured the CC that they had all the approvals and clearances for the project. The OPs issued provisional allotment letter to the CC, vide which plot No.404 in Sector 110-111-112, was allotted to him. The CC later on came to know that the OP was not having necessary clearances/approvals etc. for the project. As per terms and conditions, the plot was to be handed over physically not later than two years of the registration/requisition. The CC came to know from the public notice published in the newspaper that the GMADA has cancelled the license of the OP as developer. There is no development by the OPs for allotment/possession of the plot. The OPs have failed to refund the amount to the CC inspite of repeated requests in this regard by the CC.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.10,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The CC has further demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. The complaint of the CC is duly signed, verified and is also supported by an affidavit.
2. In reply, the OPs have raised a number of objections on the ground of cause of action etc. Number of other technical objections have also been raised by the OPs. It is also averred that the matter can only be decided by the Civil Court. It is further averred that the OP is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for which certificate of registration of society has been issued by the Registrar of Societies on 04.08.2010. Copy of certificate of registration as well as Memorandum of Society detailing aims and objects of the society attached with the reply. It is further averred that the society in question is an association of persons, which has been formed for benevolent purpose i.e. for making available affordable housing to its members and executing works for their common interest. The Members of the society have got together to promote the economic interest of their members and have undertaken to strictly abide by the terms and conditions and are bound by the liabilities as far as they enjoy the rights flowing from their membership. It is averred that this being the position of fact qua the nature of the society registered under the Registration Act, constituted for promoting the interest of its members on no profit and no loss basis, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the CC has failed to establish his locus in the nature of consumer to institute the present complaint. Further the OP has termed the complaint of the CC as false and frivolous. On merits, the averments of the complaint are denied. Surprisingly, the reply is signed by one Shri Ajay Singh and is not signed by Navjit Singh, President of the OP Society. Thus, denying deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant submitted in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. In support of their case, the OPs submitted only documents and have not submitted any affidavit.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3 and have gone through the record of the case. None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2.
5. The CC became member of OP No.1 society by submitting application alongwith membership fee of Rs.10,000/-. The CC has proved on record various receipts to show that he has made payment of Rs.10,30,000/- to the OPs on various dates which includes membership fee, which fact has not been denied by the OPs in their written version. It is also proved on the file that Navjit Singh, President of the OP society is in jail. OPs have not led any evidence that the plot was ready for possession to the CC. They have simply denied the averments of the complaint in their written version which is not even signed by the OPs.
ow
6. Perusal of contents of public notice Ex.C-6 shows that GMADA has cautioned the general public not to indulge in any sale/purchase/transaction in respect of any plot/site/apartment in the unauthorized colony being developed by the OPs. It is further mentioned in the public notice that the promoter has also undertaken development works on the site in contravention to approved layout plan and without getting the service plans approved from the competent authority. It is also mentioned in the notice that the GMADA has cancelled the license of the promoter vide order dated 02.05.2018. In view of this, the OPs are not in a position to develop the plot and handover the same to the CC.
7. It is writ large on the file that the OPs took license to develop a residential colony under PAPRA Act, over an area of 25 acres. The license was valid upto 05.05.2007. Thereafter, the OPs failed to get it renewed after rectifying the deficiencies pointed by the GMADA. We also feel, that this Commission has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. The CC became member of the OP society on 20.06.2011 and no physical possession of the plot was given to the CC within two years of registration i.e. by 20.06.2013. Further as per condition No.4 mentioned on the backside of the cash receipt it is mentioned that if the applicant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, he will be refunded the entire amount. The amount was not refunded to the CC despite written requests dated 24.07.2013, 27.08.2014, 15.05.2015 and 15.10.2016.
8. Another plea has been taken by the OPs that there is Clause No.17 of the Memorandum of Society which provides arbitration proceedings. There is no dispute with regard to arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Society. The counsel for the OPs before filing the reply has not moved any application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to the Arbitrator, in case the OPs were really interested to get the matter adjudicated before the Arbitrator.
9. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.10,30,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) to the CC alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the dates of deposits till payment. The OPs jointly and severally are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
December 02, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
