Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/555/2020

Amardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (Housefed) - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/555/2020
Date of Institution	:	1/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	25/9/2023

             

1. Amardeep Singh s/o Sh. Baldev Singh r/o plot No.132, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

 

2. Smt. Inderjeet Kaur w/o late Baldev Singh r/o plot NO.132, phase-2, Industrial area Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.   The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (Housefed), SCO No. 150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Director/authorized signatory.

2.   Amarjit Singh, Managing Director of the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (Housefed), SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

3.   State Bank of India, Zonal office, Punjab SCO 103-108, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017 through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Naginder Singh Vashist, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Adv. for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA,Member

1.     Briefly stated the complainant allured with the scheme  floated by the OPs for allotment of residential flat under the project to be developed at Cooperative Housing Complex Banur, SAS Nagar, Mohali submitted application alongwith draft of Rs.1,01,000/-. The OPs vide allotment letter Annexure-C/2  allotted flat under category 1 at project of the OPs.  As per allotment letter the price of the flat was Rs.20,18,000/-. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.12,16,500/- towards the part payment of the flat in question as per allotment letter the complainant was having option to pay the remaining amount without any interest within 30 days from the date of offer of possession of the flat. As per allotment letter the  possession of the flat in question was required to be delivered within 2 years from the date of issuance of allotment letter dated 22.6.2009.  The complainant requested the OPs several times for delivery of possession but they failed to deliver the same rather the OPs vide letter dated 30.10.2014 demanded the balance payment and unilaterally raised the price of the flat in question from Rs.20,18,000/- to Rs.33,10,000/-. The complainant protested the increase of price with the OPs and informed that he is not financially capable  of making the enhanced payment. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs for refund of the deposited amount but to no avail It is alleged that the complainant also visited the site but the flats are not constructed and completed till date and the Ops are not in a position to handover the possession of the flat in question even till date. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.    
2.     OPs in their reply stated that the scheme in question was a self financing and in which initial amount was to be paid by the allottees in quarterly installments and as per brochure and opening lines of the allotment letter dated 28.11.2009   the cost of the flat in question was tentative. Even as per clause 3 of the allotment letter balance if any towards difference of final cost  of tentative cost of the flat was to be paid at the time of handing over the possession of the flat, which shows that the final cost was to be paid later on, which was to be calculated after the completion of the project, thereafter  the 40% amount spent by the housefed from its own resources was to be paid in 120 equated monthly installments spread over a period of 10 years with interest @15% per annum. But the complainant himself defaulted in making the payment of the installment in time. It is averred that vide letter dated 28.10.2014 the answering OP demanded a sum of Rs.20,99,397/- from the complainants towards the balance cost of the flat after applying the formula of difference =final cost-tentative cost as mentioned in the brochure and allotment letter. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  
3. OP No.3 in its reply stated that  the complaint is not maintainable against it as no relief has been sought against it in the instant complaint. However, it is admitted that the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.8,98,000/- from it.  A prayer for dismissal of the complaint against it 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. On perusal of complainant it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have unilaterally  raised the price of the flat in question from tentative cost of Rs.20,18,000/- to final cost of Rs.33,10,000/-  and he was not capable of making the enhanced payment and sought the refund of an amount of Rs.12,21,500/- paid to OPs’ which was not refunded
8. On perusal of clause 3 of the allotment letter it is observed that there is provision of payment of balance if any towards  difference of final cost and the tentative cost. It is observed that the tentative cost of the flat has been increased by 60.96% approximately.  We are of the view that this clause does not give the absolute power to this OPs to vary the tentative  cost of flat from Rs.20,18,000/- to final cost of Rs.33,10,000/- i.e. with an increase of tentative cost  by 60.96%, approximately which is very exorbitant.
9. We are of the concerted view that a person who booked the flat in question in the year 2009, the possession of the same is expected to be handed over reasonably within 3 years with completion and occupancy certificate from the competent authorities and that too by an increase of not more than 10% of the tentative cost, which is not observed in the instant case. Hence, we are of the view that by not handing over the possession of the flat within a  reasonable period of 3 years from the date of allotment/booking of flat with completion certificate and occupancy certificate, the OPs are deficient in rendering service and indulged in unfair trade practice.
10.     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 handing 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.”
11.      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: - 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 no agreement has been placed on record to show delivery period stipulated in the agreement, yet a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration to deliver the possession but till date no possession has been delivered to the complainant after allotting the unit in question.
12. The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
13.     In view of the above discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints deserve to succeed and the same are accordingly partly allowed. OPs No.1&2 are directed as under :-
    1. to refund the deposited amount of
       Rs.12,21,500/-to the complainants alongwith interest @7% per annum from the respective date(s) of deposit,  till onwards.
    2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation
14. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within thirty 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 @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15. complaint against OP No.3 stands dismissed.
16. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed off.
17. 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/-

[Suresh Kumar Sardana]

Member