Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/108/2024

WWICS ESTATES PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNIMER DAUGHTER OF SH. GURNAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN WALIA

22 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	108 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	06.03.2024
Date of Decision	:	22.04.2024

 

1. WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI. SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director Baljit Singh Sandhu.
2. Baljit Singh Sandhu, Managing Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar. Mohali.
3. Rajiv Bajaj, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12. Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
4. Devinder Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd.. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

   …Appellants/opposite parties no.1 to 4

 

V e r s u s

1. Snimer Daughter of Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath. Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590, Sector 38 (W) Chandigarh.
2. Dalip Kaur Wife of Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590, Sector 38 (W) Chandigarh

…..Respondents No.1 and 2/complainants

 

3. Parvinder Singh Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12. Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
4. Kiranvir Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 …..Proforma Respondents

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                    MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present:-  Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate for the appellants.

               Sh.Harsh Goyal, Advocate for the respondents no.1 and 2.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   Opposite parties no.1 to 4 (now appellants before this Commission), have assailed the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.283 of 2020 filed by the complainants (respondents no.1 and 2) was allowed as under:-

“…. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant complete in all respects  after obtaining occupation and completion certificate from the competent authorities within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the Ops are failed to  hand over the possession to the complainant as directed above then they shall refund the amount of Rs.17,75,815/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 This order be complied with by the OPs within 3 months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No. (iii) above.…”

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants-respondents no.1 and 2 that they booked one plot No. P-26, measuring 151.81 sq. yds in the project of the opposite parties launched by them under the name and style Imperial County, Kurali, Punjab. Total cost of the plot was fixed at Rs.17,75,815/-, which stood paid by the complainants and the said fact regarding receipt of this amount was acknowledged in the allotment letter Annexure C-1 and also Allotment-cum-Agreement. All other expenses including stamp duty for executing the sale deed  was to be borne by the opposite parties. Possession of the said plot was to be delivered within 12 months after completing the development work from the date of allotment-cum-agreement. However, despite making payment of full sale consideration and making several requests and representation dated 15.6.2020 the opposite parties failed to hand over the possession of the plot. Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3.           The complaint was contested by the opposite parties and they filed written version, wherein while taking numerous objections, it was stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Mr. Gurnam Singh (father of Complainant no.1 and husband of complainant no.2) who introduced himself as Senior Officer in Enforcement Directorate and told that he is being posted as Deputy Director, in the said Department, had visited the Office of the opposite parties alongwith the complainants i.e. Snimer (Daughter) and Dalip Kaur (Wife) and showed their interest in buying one residential plot in the said project.  After discount, an amount of Rs.17,75,815/- was settled  for the said plot. Gurnam Singh requested the opposite parties to make the Allotment Letter and  Agreement of the said Plot in the name of Snimer & Dalip Kaur and thereafter, the said documents were taken away by him.  He informed the opposite parties that he would send the draft/Cheque as regards the payment of the said plot. However, thereafter, neither any draft nor any cheque was delivered as promised by Gurnam Singh and the complainants. The Sales Team contacted the complainants and Gurnam Singh, a number of times with regard to the payment of the said plot. However, the opposite parties came to know that certain inquiries were being carried out by the CBI against Gurnam Singh and complainant No. 2 with regard to their source of income and accordingly, Gurnam Singh informed the opposite parties that the complainants will not be able to buy the said plot in question and the same be treated as cancelled. Under those circumstances, the allotment of plot was cancelled by the opposite parties.   All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in their complaint and controverted those, contained in the written version of opposite parties.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. 
7.           Hence this appeal.
8.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record; including the written arguments, very carefully.
9.           Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the District Commission failed to appreciate following two main grounds/ objections taken by  the appellants:-
   1. Not even a single evidence has been placed on record to establish that the complainants have actually paid the amount of Rs.17,75,815/-  towards price of the plot in question; and
   2. Infact the said plot was purchased by one Gurnam Singh, through the complainants (father of complainant no.1 and husband of complainant no.2), yet, the documents i.e. allotment letter cum agreement, referred to above, were handed over to him (Gurnam Singh) under good faith, as he influenced the opposite parties that he is a Senior Officer in Enforcement Directorate but thereafter he did not make the payment, as a result of which, allotment of the plot stood cancelled by the opposite parties.
10.           First coming to the ground taken by the appellants to the effect that the respondents no.1 and 2/complainants have failed to prove that they have paid even a single penny towards price of the plot in question, it may be stated here that we have gone through the document, Annexure-A (Details of Residential Plot), forming part of “Allotment-Cum-Agreement For Residential Plot in Township Project “Imperial County” dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure C-1) and found that under the note, it has been clearly mentioned that “The Buyer has already deposited the entire amount of Rs.17,75,815/- and there are no further dues outstanding. All charges, expenses, stamp duty, official fees extra towards sale deed including documentation will be borne by the company M/s WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd.”. This agreement dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure C-1) has been signed by the Authorized Signatory of the company and also the complainants. It is significant to mention here that the opposite parties are signatory to this document i.e. Annexure-A (Details of Residential Plot), forming part of “Allotment-Cum-Agreement For Residential Plot in Township Project “Imperial County” dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure C-1). Thus, once the execution of this document, admitting the receipt of entire sale consideration of the plot in question, is on record, thereafter, it requires no more evidence and/proof by respondents no.1 and 2/complainants. The District Commission was also right in holding so.

                   Our above view is fully supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.Ramasubbamma Versus V. Vijayalakshmi, in Civil Appeal No.2095 of 2022 decided on 11.04.2022 (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 375), wherein also it was held that once the  vendor/opposite party has admitted receipt of  substantial advance of sale consideration in the agreement/allotment letter, no further evidence and/proof is required. In this case also, the defendant took a plea that agreement to sell is a bogus document and no sale consideration is paid by the plaintiff. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while brushing aside this plea held as under:-

 

“It was also contended by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 that agreement to sell dated 12.04.2005 is a bogus document and no sale consideration is paid by the plaintiff…..

xxxxxxxxxxx

…….Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment/receipt of advance substantial sale consideration was admitted by the vendor, thereafter nothing further was required to be proved by the plaintiff – vendee. Therefore, as such the learned Trial Court rightly decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. The High Court, was not required to go into the aspect of the execution of the agreement to sell and the payment/receipt of substantial advance sale consideration, once the vendor had specifically admitted the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of the advance sale consideration; thereafter no further evidence and/or proof was required……”

11.           Now coming to the second ground/objection taken by the appellants to the effect that infact the said plot was purchased by one Gurnam Singh, through the complainants (father of complainant no.1 and husband of complainant no.2), yet, the document i.e. allotment letter cum agreement, referred to above, was handed over to him (Gurnam Singh) under good faith, as he influenced the opposite parties that he is a Senior Officer in Enforcement Directorate but thereafter did not make the payment, as a result of which, allotment of the plot stood cancelled by the opposite parties; it may be stated here that not even a single piece of evidence to the effect that the said Gurnam Singh has any relation, whatsoever, qua purchase of the plot in question from the appellants has been placed on record. Though, it has been alleged by the appellants that Gurnam Singh has informed them that the  complainants did not want to purchase the plot in question, yet, not even a single evidence in the shape of any letter/email etc. has been placed on record by the appellants to this effect.
12.           Furthermore, plea taken by the appellants to the effect that Gurnam Singh approached them, at the time of allotment of the plot in question, in the year 2011 and influenced them under the garb of his position as Senior Officer in the Enforcement Directorate is also of no help to them because from bare perusal of letter dated 28.12.2011, Annexure C-5 having been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Forensic Science Services, reveals that Shri Gurnam Singh was holding the post of Section Officer in CFSL, Chandigarh. It is further coming out from the letter dated 24.01.2012, Annexure C-6 having been issued by the Government of India, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, that Sh. Gurnam Singh joined as Assistant Director on  02.01.2012, in Chandigarh Zonal Office. Under these circumstances, the appellants have failed to establish that Sh.Gurnam Singh has ever been in the position of Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chandigarh as on 15/11/2011 i.e. the date when the complainants had purchased the plot in question in the said project, vide “Allotment-Cum-Agreement For Residential Plot in Township Project “Imperial County” dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure C-1), on payment of entire sale consideration, in the manner, referred to above.
13.           However, as far registration of case by the CBI against complainant No.1 or Sh. Gurnam Singh for having acquired assets disproportionate, to their known sources of income through  corrupt and illegal means or lodging of FIR dated 27.11.2017 is concerned, it may be stated here that even if the said proceedings are sub-judice, it has no concern, whatsoever with the facts of the present case, as in the present case, the complainants who have purchased the plot in question on making payment of the entire sale consideration, have come to this Commission seeking directions to the appellants to deliver possession of the said plot or in the alternative to refund the price of plot alongwith compensation etc.  The District Commission was also right in holding so.
14.           As far as other objections taken by the appellants qua maintainability, jurisdiction, status of the complainants as consumer etc. are concerned, we are of the considered view that the District Commission has rightly dealt with these objections and the same need no interference of this Commission.  
15.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, allowing the consumer complaint, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and did not need interference of this Commission. 
16.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
17.           Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of, accordingly.
18.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
19.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission be sent back immediately.

Pronounced

22.04.2024

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

 MEMBER

Rg.