STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (In Complaint No.47 of 2010) Date of Institution: 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.01.2011 Smt. Meenu Arora wife of Sh. Vineet Arora, earlier R/o H.No.486/2, Sector 45-A, Chandgiarh now residing at H.No.2221, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh. …Complainant. Versus1. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 8-C, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01, through its Managing Director. ...Opposite Parties. (Complaint No.48 of 2010) Date of Institution: 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.01.2011 Sh. Amit Mehndiratta son of Sh. Prem Nath Mehndiratta R/o H.No.35, Green Park, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. through his legal constituted GPA Sh. Vineet Arora R/o H.No.2221, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh. …Complainant. Versus1. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 8-C, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01, through its Managing Director. ...Opposite Parties. (Complaint No.49 of 2010) Date of Institution: 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.01.2011 Sh. Deepak Verma son of Lt. Sh. Maya Ram Verma R/o H.No.2809, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh. …Complainant. Versus1. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 8-C, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01, through its Managing Director. ...Opposite Parties. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the complainants. Sh. B. S. Mangat, Advocate for the OPs. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of three complaints having similar facts filed by the complainants against the OPs under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 listed below: - (1) CC No.47/2010 – Meena Arora Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another. (2) CC No.48/2010 – Amit Mehendiratta Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another. (3) CC No.49/2010 – Deepak Verma Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another. 2. The facts are taken out from complaint case No.47 of 2010 - Mrs. Meenu Arora Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another. According to the complainant, OPs floated a scheme for allotment of flats and the complainant on 18.8.2006 booked one such flat, the basic price of which was Rs.24,10,878/- and Flat No.Q-206 was allotted to her vide allotment letter (Annexure C-3). The OPs had undertaken to deliver the possession of the flat by the end of Year 2008 and when she went to pay the next installment on 26.10.2006, she noticed that no consideration was started at the site. Due to this reason, she also paid the said installment late. The subsequent installments were, however, paid by her and a total amount of Rs.20,67,569/- has been paid vide receipts (Annexures C-4 to C-11). OPs, however, did not start any construction at the spot even after the year 2008 passed by the end of which, they were to deliver possession of the flats. She approached them in May 2009 and requested either for the delivery of the possession or the refund of the money, which they did not. The complainant thereafter filed the present complaint for refund of the amount along with interest @18% per annum; Rs.3 Lacs as compensation towards escalation in costs of construction material and price rise of land; Rs.2 Lacs for mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation. 3. The OPs opposed the complaint alleging that it has been filed to injure their goodwill and reputation. It was admitted that the complainant deposited the initial amount and Flat No.Q-206 was allotted to her vide allotment letter dated 16.11.2006. It was admitted that the project got delayed due to some unforeseen circumstances but now the construction was in full swing and the possession was going to be delivered till 31.7.2011. It was alleged that progress reports were being regularly sent to the complainants, that Clause 30 of the allotment letter envisaged that the period for delivery of possession mentioned was only indicative and the possession could be given before or after the said date. In case of delay, OPs were liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5/- per Sq. feet of super area per month for the period of delay. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The parties produced evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. Annexure C-3 is the copy of allotment letter dated 16.11.2006 vide which the said flat was allotted to the complainant. It is mentioned therein that “Possession of the unit will be given on 31-OCT-2008 in down payment Plan and after 3 months of completion of the period of the installment Plan, subject to receipt of the entire Basic Price…” As regards the schedule of installments in Time Linked Plan opted by the complainant, it is also mentioned that possession would be delivered on 31.10.2008 on which date, the payment of Rs.1,21,026/- would be made by the complainant. It is admitted by the OPs that the construction had not been completed by them by the said date and surprisingly not even till date. They have alleged that they are planning to complete the construction and deliver possession till 31.7.2011. It is, therefore, clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 7. As mentioned above, the possession was to be delivered by 30.10.2008. OPs cannot unilaterally change the said date to July 2011 to which the complainant does not agree. The mere fact that the OPs have alleged in the reply that construction was in full swing is of no use to the complainant because the OPs did not adhere to the time period agreed by them through the allotment letter (Annexure C-3). 8. The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that in fact 30.10.2008 was only indicative and was not the final date in this respect. Their contention is that the construction has got delayed due to some unforeseen circumstances, which they have not mentioned in their reply nor they have produced any evidence to suggest as to what those unforeseen circumstances were. It is, therefore, clear that there was no justifiable ground on the part of OPs to delay the completion of the construction and delivery of possession by the due date. They only collected the money and slept over the matter. They realized subsequently that they have committed a blunder. The OPs have not produced any document to suggest as to on which date the construction was started. As per the payment plan, the booking was done on 17.8.2006 and the possession was to be delivered on 31.10.2008 meaning thereby that the construction would have taken only two years and three months to complete. If according to the OPs, the construction would be completed in July 2011 that means they started construction only in April 2009 much after the date fixed by them for completion of the construction. It, therefore, shows gross deficiency in service on their part. 9. The OPs have not produced any evidence to suggest if at the time of booking in August 2006, they had obtained the requisite permissions from the Government and other authorities for raising construction and setting up the colony at the said site. The circumstances also show that without obtaining required permissions and sanctions, OPs started collecting money from the public. In similar circumstances, in the case of Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universals Ltd., 2007 (2) CLT 440, the Hon’ble National Commission held that giving alluring advertisements promising delivery of possession of the constructed flat/plot to the purchaser/consumer within the stipulated time and subsequently on its failure, turn around and contend that Government permissions such as approval of Zoning plan, layout plan and schematic building plan were not given, the delay in construction should not be the ground for grant of compensation to the consumer, amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of the builder/OP. In cases, Vena Khana Vs. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. & Ors, 2007 (3) CLT 33 and Premier Homes Vs. Oliver Archibald Aranha, 2010 (2) CLT 31, it was held that where there is delay in construction, the complainant is required to be compensated by the OP. We are, therefore, of the opinion that not only that the OPs had been deficient in rendering proper service, they are guilty of unfair trade practice also. 10. The contention of the complainant that the date given was only indicative and not final also does not hold any water. It was not only in the allotment letter but in the plan of payment also, that the said date was mentioned. OPs have not alleged or provided any reason for delay of construction on their part, which shows that the construction was delayed by them intentionally due to their malafide action. Not only that the complainant has been deprived of interest on the amount deposited by her with the OPs, she has suffered mentally as she had been waiting for about four years in the hope of getting the flat, which the OPs failed to deliver. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaints must succeed and the same are accordingly allowed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- in each complaint. In the present complaint i.e. Complaint Case No.47 of 2010 - Meena Arora Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another, the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,67,569/- along with interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit till the amount is refunded to the complainant. 12. In CC No.48/2010 – Amit Mehendiratta Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another, the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.29,78,984/- along with interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit till the amount is refunded to the complainant. 13. In CC No.49/2010 – Inder Dev Vs. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and another, the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,67,569/- along with interest @12% per annum since the date of deposit till the amount is refunded to the complainant. 14. The amounts shall be paid in each case within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same with interest @18% per annum since the date of deposit till the date of payment to the complainants. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.1 Lac as compensation in each case to the complainants for mental agony and harassment caused by them by delaying the construction. In case of the amount of Rs.1 Lac, the interest @12% p.a. would be payable with effect from today. 15. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 21st January 2011. [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION(Complaint No.47 of 2010) Argued by: Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. B. S. Mangat, Advocate for the OPs. Dated the 21st day of January, 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint along with connected complaint bearing No.48 and 49 all of 2010 has been allowed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- each. (NEENA SANDHU) (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Complaint No.48 of 2010) Date of Institution: 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.01.2011 Sh. Amit Mehndiratta son of Sh. Prem Nath Mehndiratta R/o H.No.35, Green Park, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. through his legal constituted GPA Sh. Vineet Arora R/o H.No.2221, Super Enclave, Sector 49-C, Chandigarh. …Complainant. Versus1. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 8-C, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01, through its Managing Director. ...Opposite Parties. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. B. S. Mangat, Advocate for the OPs. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Complaint No.47 of 2010 titled ‘Smt. Meena Arora Vs. S.M.V Agencies PVt. Ltd. and another’ vide which this complaint has been allowed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 21st January 2011. [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/- STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Complaint No.49 of 2010) Date of Institution: 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 21.01.2011 Sh. Deepak Verma son of Lt. Sh. Maya Ram Verma R/o H.No.2809, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh. …Complainant. Versus1. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.64-65, Ground Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. S.M.V Agencies Pvt. Ltd., H.O. 8-C, Hansalaya, 15, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-01, through its Managing Director. ...Opposite Parties. BEFORE: MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. B. S. Mangat, Advocate for the OPs. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Complaint No.47 of 2010 titled ‘Smt. Meena Arora Vs. S.M.V Agencies PVt. Ltd. and another’ vide which this complaint has been allowed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 21st January 2011. [NEENA SANDHU] PRESIDING MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
