Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/57/2023

PARAMJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AKASH COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER SINGH SIDHU

14 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/57/2023
Date of Institution	:	6/2/2023
Date of Decision	:	14/5/2024

 

Paramjit Singh aged about 50 years, son of Gurdial Singh, resident of H.No. 1123, Block B, I.T. City, Sector 83-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali now resident of Flat No. 1560, Progressive Enclave, Sector 50-B, U.T. Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Akash Cooperative House Building Society Limited, SCO No. 672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its President.

2. The Akash Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Site Office, Sector 86, (Nanu Majra), adjacent to Sector 79, 2023 SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Secretary.

3.The Dastkar Cooperative House Building Society, Limited,

SSCO No. 672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab its President.

4.Preet Land Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Site Office, Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Director.

5.   Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Chief Administrator.

  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Akshit Grover, Advocate for OP No. 1 to 4.
	:	Ms. Swati Dayalan, Advocate (through VC) and Sh. Pratyush Sood, Advocate for OP No.5.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated that the complainant became a member/shareholder of OP No.1 society  with the registered shareholder of 10 Marla plot in the said Cooperative House Building Society  on 6.1.2007 by paying member fee of Rs.5110/-  and paid Rs.11,75,000/- and Rs.7,94,890/- towards the cost of the plot in question to Sh. Charan Singh, President of the Society as per demand.   The OP society has issued receipt dated 6.1.2017 for payment of Rs.11,75,000/- however, did not issue any receipt for amount of Rs.7,94,890/-  till date. The total cost of the plot was Rs.26 lakh and the complainant made payment and EDC charges as and when demanded by the OPs. The complainant received letter of intent dated 31.10.2009 regarding plot No.250 Sq.  in Preet City Phse-I, at Sector 86 SAS Nagar, Mohali. The Ops issued allotment letter dated 19.7.2010 alloting 10 marla plot No.400, Sector 86, SAS Nagar Mohali. However, thereafter the complainant again and again changed the plot Number by issuing various allotment letters  and vide allotment letter dated 6.10.2014 alltoemnt plot No.302(NM)  with  of 10 marla  in Sector 896, SAS Nagar Mohali. It is stated that on the assurance of OPs to deliver timely possession of the plot the complainant apart from the basic sale price of the plot, paid his hard earned money to the OPs as per demand without default. It is alleged that the OPs assured the complainant that possession shall be handed over within one year from the date of obtaining membership i.e. by 5.1.2008  but the same was not offered till date. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 to 4 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that both the societies i.e. OP No.1 and 3 were working  independently and did not have concern with each other from 1999 till 2006.  It is admitted that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.11,75,000/-  however, it is denied that the complainant paid Rs.7,94,890/-. It is denied that the complainant was sold the plot in question @Rs.26 lac. It is stated that fresh allotment was issued to the complainant due to  certain changes by the government authorities. It is denied that the possession was to be handed over within one year as it has no where been mentioned that the possession of the plot was to be delivered in 1 year and there has been no deficiency on the part of the answering OPs rather the answering OPs have also been suffering due to the changing policies of the government as well as the inactions of the GMADA which were to be done in consonance with the OP No.4 as per the Mega Project and they have failed badly at it. As a matter of fact the OP no. 4 is till date fighting litigations against the GMADA for acquiring the land to provide to their members. It is averred that the delay in delivery  is due to changing government policies and inactions of GMADA and OPs have not defaulted anywhere. Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No 5  in its reply  stated that it is an inter-se dispute between the Complainant and the other OPs. The answering-Opposite Party No. 5 i.e. GMADA is neither a promoter nor developer for the project in question and the Complainant is not allottee of the Answering-Opposite Party. It is averred that  the promoter M/s preet Land promoters and Developers had got approved its Mega Housing Project (Sector-86, S.A.S. Nagar) from the Empowered Committee headed by Hon'ble Chief Minister, Punjab in its meeting held on 27.01.2006 and after the said approval, Letter of Intent indicating the concessions granted to the Promoter (M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.) by the Government was issued by the Nodal Agency (PUDA) vide Memo No. PUDA/ACA(Pr.)/2006/ 17566 dated 02.05.2006. Subsequently, an agreement was signed by the said Promoter with the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development on 30.06.2006. Thereafter, Supplementary Agreement dated 04.01.2018 was also executed by this Promoter with the Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development as per which implementation period of this Mega Housing Project was extended from 01.07.2015 to 30.06.2018. Further, as per notification No. 891862/1 dated 15- 12-2016 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, the implementation period for this Project was extended by the Chief Administrator, PUDA from 01.07.2018 to 30-06-2021 vide Memo No. 321 dated 24.08.2020. However, till date, the Promoter (M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.) has not obtained Completion Certificate or Partial Completion Certificate from the Competent Authority cum Chief Administrator of GMADA by completing Internal Development Works of its Mega Housing Project falling in Sector-86, S.A.S Nagar. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Admittedly the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.11,75,000/- on 6.1.2007 towards the sale consideration of the plot in question which is evident from Annexure C-2. The complainant has alleged that he paid Rs.7,94,890/- in cash to the OPs towards the sale consideration of the plot in question  receipt whereof was not issued by the OPs. As per averment of the  complainant the OPs allotted the plot in question not only once but kept on changing the number of the plot various times.  
8. From the record it is clear that the complainant made payment of Rs.85,700/ 0n 12.4.2007 as is evident from Annexure C-4. It is also evident from Annexure C-7 that the complainant further made payment of Rs.2,89,300/- on 22.9.2008 as development charges and further made payment  of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- as is evident from Annexure C-10. Apart from this the complainant has made membership fee of Rs.5110/- as is evident from Annexure C-1. It is the allegation of the complainant that despite of allotting the plot on various occasions till today the Ops are not in a position to handover the possession of the same.
9. The stand taken  by the Ops No.1 to 4 is that they are not in a position to handover the possession of the plot as the part of the land has been acquired by the OP No.5 hence as and when the government will do the needful only then they will be in a position to handover the possession of the plot in question.  It is averred that the delay in delivery is due to changing government policies and inactions of GMADA and OPs have not defaulted anywhere.
10. After going through the documents on file, it is clear that the total sale consideration of the plot is 26,00,000/-. Moreover the during the pendency of the complaint the OPs NO.1 to 4 have shown their inability to hand over the possession of the plot in question as they don’t have land as of now and tried to shift the liability over the shoulders of OP No.5. However, the it is an admitted case of the parties that the OPs No.1 to 4 have collected huge money from the complainant without having necessary permissions from the competent authorities. In case Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., reported as  III(2007) CPJ-7 (NC),   the Hon’ble National Commission held that a builder should not collect money, from the prospective buyers, without obtaining the required permissions, such as zoning plan, layout plan, and schematic building plan. It is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, such as sanction for construction etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchasers of the flats/building.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs No.1 to 4, who are not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit(s) as promised, have no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainants. 
12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastructure vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that 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.
13. Further, 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.”
14.  So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, though the complainant has sought physical possession of the plot but keeping in mind the circumstances that the OPs No.1 to 4  are not in  position to handover the same which has been duly affirmed vide their duly sworn affidavit, it would be appropriate to order refund of the deposited amount, which as per receipts available on record comes to Rs.18,05,110/-. Though the complainant has claimed that he has paid Rs.7,94,890/- in cash but he failed to prove the same by placing on record any documentary evidence.

 

 

15. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No. 1 to 4 are directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs. Rs.18,05,110/-  with interest @12% P.A.from the respective dates of deposit till realization..
2. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1 to 4 within 45 days 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 @ 15% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
17. Complaint qua OP No.5 stands dismissed.
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
19.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
14/5/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member