Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.204 of 07-09-2020 Decided on : 21-06-2023 Sanjeev Garg aged about 51 years S/o Amrit Lai Garg, R/o # 5, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus SONI HI TECH Builders, Office: SCF No.7-8, Maa Shimla Homes Opp. Desu Majra Govt. School, Chaju Majra, Itharar-140301, through its Prop./Owner Radhey Soni S/o Ram Chander Soni. 2nd Address: SONI HI TECH Builders, Office: SCF No.8, Maa Shimla Homes Part-1 Near Vikram School, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160055, through its Owner/Prop. Radhey Soni Sio Ram Chander Soni. 3rd Address: SONI HI TECH Builders R/o Flat No.603, G.H.S., 104-G, Sector-20, Panchkula-134117, through its Prop./Owner Radhey Soni S/o Ram Chander Soni. K Soni Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Office: SCF-6, Marrigold Complex, ChajjuMajra Road opp. Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Mohali-140301, through its M.D. Kuldeep Soni. (Land Owner)/Wholetime Director Ved Prakash Sharma/Power of Attorney Holder Radhey Soni S/o Ram Chander Soni.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh. Sahil Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite parties Ex-parte. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Sanjeev Garg (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against SONI HI TECH Builders and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that on the assurance of opposite parties, the complainant purchased the House/Flat No.84, 1St Floor, Maa Shimla Complex, Landran Road, Kharar comprised in Khasra No.67//17/2 (3-12), 18/1 (0-15) 18/2 (1-6) 18/3 (1-6) Teh. Kharar, Hadbasat No.184, Kharar from opposite parties at Bathinda in the presence of Mohit Gupta S/o Devinder Gupta. The complainant demanded the assurance of completion of projection and payment and then opposite parties offered the advance Regd. Sale Deed of the flat so that the amount will be safe and secure. The total consideration amount of the flat/house was fixed to the tune of Rs.13,33,333/- and complainant paid the part payments from time to time to opposite parties. Total Payment given to opposite parties as Mr.Radhey Soni and his associates duly visited Bathinda time to time and received the total payment of Rs.13,33,333/-. It is further alleged that at the time of registration, opposite parties also stated that sale seed was registered as per collector rate only and they registered the sale deed No.2018-19/15/1/2347 in favour of the complainant as per collector rate i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-which was paid through Ch. No.159466 dated 25.9.2018 from Yes Bank Bathinda and balance payment of Rs.8,33,333/- received by opposite parties time to time in 5 instalments in cash in presence of Davinder Kumar S/o Hari Ram, Ramnik S/o Rajinder Kumar, Mohit Gupta S/o Devinder Gupta, Vijay Kumar S/o Surjit Ram and Mintu Garg S/o Girdhari Lal Garg. The sale deed executed by Radhey Soni S/o Ram Chander Soni being the promoter of land i.e. opposite party No.1 and Power of Attorney Holder of land owner opposite party No.2. The Intkal was also got sanctioned in the name of the complainant in the revenue record. Opposite parties also assured the complainant that they will gave him possession, completion certificate and occupancy certificate within 1 year after sale deed. It is further alleged that in the sale deed, it is mentioned that the flat/house is complete whereas the actual facts are that the flat is still incomplete and moreover till date no possession, completion certificate and occupancy certificate etc. were given to the complainant. It is further alleged that the construction of the flat was not upto the mark and part construction was also defective construction. It is further alleged the complainant several times visited the site office of opposite parties and requested them to handover the complete full possession of his flat/house, but they have been lingering the matter and week back they flatly refused to do so. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to give the possession after completion of the flat/house and doing the construction upto mark, remove the defects of part construction alongwith occupancy certificate and completion certificate and also provide all the basic amenities alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakhs on account of mental harassment, pain and sufferings and cost to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on account of present litigation also and to pay interest @ 18% p.a with compounded monthly rest on the total deposited amount since deposit in the shape of damages. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties, as such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence six affidavits namely Sanjeev Garg, Mohit Gupta, Devinder Kumar, Ramnik, Vijay Kumar and Mintu Garg dated 7.9.2020 (Ex.C1 to Ex.C6) and documents (Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9). We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased flat for Rs.13,33,333/- from opposite parties. However, opposite parties got registered sale deed as per collector rate and it has shown the sale consideration on the basis of collector rate as Rs.5 lakhs. It is further argued that opposite parties had assured to handover the possession alongwith completion and occupency certificate within one year after sale deed and since the sale deed stands executed on 25.9.2018. However, opposite parties have not delivered the possession to the complainant alongwith completion and occupency certificate, which amounts to deficiency in services and complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to handover the possession of his flat after removal of defects alongwith completion and occupency certificate and to provide all the basic amenities and compensation for mental tension and harassment. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased one flat from opposite parties vide sale deed, (Ex.C7) and mutation in the name of the complainant stands sanctioned. A perusal of sale deed, (Ex.C7) shows that opposite parties have admitted that the building where the flat is situated is incomplete and sale deed further reveals that the possession has been given to the complainant. Accordingly, this Commission is of the view that opposite parties have handed over the possession of the flat, which was not completed and since opposite parties have received the entire sale consideration amount from the complainant, as such, opposite parties are duty bound to complete the constructions of the building and handover the possession of the flat in proper manner alongwith occupation and completion certificate and also provide the basic amenities to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed with following directions:- i) Opposite parties are directed to handover the possession of the flat to the complainant alongwith completion and occupency certificate; ii) Opposite parties shall provide all the basic amenities to the complainant; iii) The complainant is also held entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigations. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 20-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |