Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/696/2020

Mr. Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Anil K. Sagar

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	696 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.12.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	18.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Amritpal Singh aged about 62 years son of Sh.Waryam Singh, R/o H.No.2048, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Ltd., SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar Mohali.

2]  The Manager, Bajwa Developers Ltd., SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar Mohali.

  ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Present    :    Sh.Sourav Adv. proxy for Sh.Anil K. Sagar,      Counsel for the complainant

                Sh.Inderpal Singh Bains, Counsel for the OPs

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT          The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that in the year 2012, he purchased one residential plot bearing No.1025 of 134 sq. yards (Old No.9056 A1 of 130 sq. yard) in Sunny Enclave, Residential Township, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar from OPs and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,31,000/- including EDC charges of Rs.75,00/- whereupon he was also issued No Dues Certificate by OPs on 22.8.2018 (Annexure C-1 & C-2).  It is stated that despite receipt of complete consideration of the plot in question including EDC charges as well as issuance of No Dues Certificate, the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to the complainant.  It is also stated that the complainant had visited the OPs a number of time to get the possession of the plot but they did not pay any heed. Hence, this complaint has been preferred seeking refund the said amount from the OP Bank.

 

2]  The OPs have filed written version and while admitting the allotment of the plot in question to the complainant as well as receipt of amount, stated that the complainant was assured that he can take the possession of the said plot or any other plot suitable to him which was available, to which the complainant gave no response.  It is stated that the OPs are still ready and deliver the possession of the plot of the choice of the complainant and therefore, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertion of OPs made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6]      The perusal of the record reveals that the OPs No.1 & 2 have failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot to the complainant despite admitting the receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.8,31,000/- (including EDC of Rs.75,000/-) from the complainant. The OPs have failed to fulfill their contractual obligation by delivering the possession of the residential plot to the complainant, having all basic amenities, within a reasonable time, so the complainant/purchaser cannot be compelled to keep on waiting indefinitely that too even after passing of more than 10 years since the year of allotment i.e. 2012 (Ann.C-1). 

         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.”

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed: - Moreover, 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. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 2014. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered.

7]       Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties by not delivering the possession of the plot in question, despite receipt of amount, having all basic amenities, proves deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice.  The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the plot allotted to him and he is entitled to seek the refund of the amount along with compensation.

8]       In the light of above observations, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed with direction to OP No.1 & 2 to refund an amount of Rs.8,31,000/- along with interest @10% p.a. w.e.f. 16.3.2012 (Ann.C-1) till its actual payment. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay lump-sum compensation of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental agony and harassment.

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of its copy.

9]       Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

          Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.08.2023                                                                     Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER