Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/260/2021

Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The punjab state federation of Cooperative - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Gupta

13 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	260 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	19.04.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	13.12.2024

 

 

 

 

Mrs.Sarabjit Kaur w/o Late Sh.Paramjit Singh, V&PO Ghurewaha, Via Khandhala Jattan, Tehsil Dassuya, Hoshiarpur.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

 

The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED), through its Managing Director, SCO 151-152, Sector 34, Chandigarh-160022. 0172-5029702.

   … … … Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Parveen Gupta, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Naginder Singh Vashist, Counsel for Opposite Party(OP).

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       By this common order, we propose to dispose off five connected consumer complaints i.e. present consumer complaint and four other consumer complaints, detailed below, having common questions of law & facts:-

 

1	2	3		4
Sr. No	C.C. No.	Complainant’s Name	Vs.	Opposite Party(s)  Name
1.	CC/260/2021	Sarabjit Kaur	Vs.	The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED)
2.	CC/261/2021	Suman	Vs.	The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED)
3.	CC/262/2021	Gurpreet Singh	Vs.	The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED)
4.	CC/263/2021	Gurwinder Kaur	Vs.	The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED)
5.	CC/264/2021	Rajiv Sakhuja	Vs.	The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED)

 

 

2]       The facts are gathered from C.C.No.260/2021 – Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED).

 

3]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that allured with the scheme floated by the OP for allotment of built-up residential flats at Co-operative Housing Complex, Banur (Chandigarh-Rajpura Highway), Distt. S.A.S.Nagar Mohali, complainant applied for the same by submitting application form alongwith Rs.75,000/-. The OP vide allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 (Annexure C—1) allotted Class-IV Employee Flat at Cooperative Housing Complex of Housefed, Punjab at Banur, Distt. Patiala. As per allotment letter, the tentative cost of the flat was Rs.14,92,000/-. The complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.8,95,250/- to the OP on different dates towards the part payment of the flat in question. As per allotment letter, the complainant was having option to pay the remaining 40% cost of the flat without any interest within 30 days from the date of offer of the possession of flat.

 

    It is pleaded that the OP, vide demand notice for possession/letter dated 29.10.2014 (Annexure C-2), informed the complainant that Flat No.3003, Floor No.1, Category II, has been allotted to him on the basis of draw of lots held on 03.07.2014 and demanded the balance payment of Rs.15,64,603/- and arbitrary increased the price of the flat in question from Rs.14,92,000/- to Rs.24,56,000/-. The complainant protested the increase of price of the flat with the OP when there is no increase in area of the flat or there is no change in the specifications etc. As the price of the flat has been increased beyond the capacity of the complainant to pay and possession has also not been offered in time, the complainant contacted the OP and requested them to refund the deposited amount along with interest but the amount has not been refunded. Alleging the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.8,95,250/-along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation expenses.   

 

4]       OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written version, taking preliminary objections of limitation and concealment of facts. On merits, it is averred that the scheme in question was a self financing in which the allottee/complainant applied by submitting his application for his desired category of flat with the requisite earnest amount (5%). Once he stood successful in the draw of lots, he was required to pay 10% of the amount within 30 days from the date of allotment letter and thereafter 45% amount was to be paid by the allottee/complainant in 8 equated quarterly installments and as per opening lines of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 the cost of the flat in question was tentative. Even as per Clause 3 of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009, balance, if any, towards difference of Final Cost and Tentative Cost of the flat was to be paid at the time of handing over of 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, remaining 40% amount was to be spent by the OP from its own resources and after completion of the project, this 40% (tentative cost) + balance towards the difference of the final cost was to be paid by the allottee/complainant in 120 equated monthly installments spread over in a period of 10 years with interest @ 15% p.a. Even in Clause 8 of the terms & conditions, attached with the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009, it has been clearly stated that the exact/final cost of the flat shall be worked out after the completion of the flat but before handing over the possession of the flat.

 

    It is averred that the complainant herself defaulted in making the payment of the quarterly installments in time. It is averred that vide demand notice for possession/letter dated 29.10.2014, the OP demanded a sum of Rs.15,64,603/- from the complainant 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. It is further averred vide demand notice for possession/letter dated 29.10.2014, the complainant was asked to take possession of the flat by 15.02.2015 but till date no reply has been received from the complainant. Moreover, as per terms and conditions of the Brochure and Allotment Letter ‘no refund shall be made after the offer of the possession of the flat’. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by OP. 

 

5]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP as made in their written version.

 

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

 

7]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

 

8]       The OP has taken objection that complaint is not maintainable in view of the limitation period prescribed as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 but this objection is not sustainable as OP after receipt of 60% of the amount from the complainant neither delivered the possession of the flat on agreed amount by the parties nor refunded the amount to the complainant. Hence, there is recurring/continuing cause of action against the OP.

 

9]      The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP has arbitrary raised the price of the flat in question from tentative cost of Rs.14,92,000/- to final cost of Rs.24,56,000/- which is higher than the cost of the original flat and she was not capable of making the enhanced payment and sought the refund of an amount of Rs.8,95,250/- paid to OP which was not refunded.

 

10]      On perusal of Clause 3 of the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009, it is observed that there is provision of payment of balance, if any towards difference of Final Cost and Tentative Cost of the flat. It is observed that the tentative cost of the flat has been increased by almost 62%. This clause does not give the absolute power to the OP to vary the tentative cost of flat from Rs.14,92,000/- to final cost of Rs.24,56,000/- i.e. with an increase of tentative cost by 62%, which is very exorbitant. The contention of the complainant is that OP has arbitrary raised the price of the flat in question from tentative cost of Rs.14,92,000/- to final cost of Rs.24,56,000/-, i.e. with an exorbitant increase of Rs.9,64,000/- in the final cost, which was beyond her capacity to pay, hence, she prayed for refund of the deposited amount. The contention of OP is that remaining 40%/enhanced amount was to be paid by the allottee/complainant with interest in easy installments, meaning thereby the complainant could have taken the possession of the flat by paying a small amount out of the balance cost. It is settled principle based upon the judgements of Hon’ble Apex Court that where an Unfair Trade Practice is adopted by OPs, unilaterally enhancing the price of the flat exorbitantly there it is option of the complainant either to take possession or to seek refund of the amount deposited with interest accrued upon it.

 

11]      As OP in the allotment letter dated 28.01.2009 does not mention date of delivery of possession of flat to the allottee/complainant so it amounts not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. A person who booked the flat in question in the year 2009, the possession of the same is expected to be handed over within reasonable time period i.e. 2 years with completion and occupancy certificate from the competent authorities, which has not been done in the present case. It is an admitted case that the construction was not completed within the period of 2 years. The possession of the flat was offered on 29.10.2014 unilateral hike of price of 62%. Hence, by not handing over the possession of the flat within reasonable time period of 2 years from the date of allotment/booking of flat with completion certificate and occupancy certificate, the OP is deficient in rendering service and indulged in unfair trade practice.

12]      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.”

13]      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.

 

    The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

 

14]      Under above mentioned facts, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by OP, is clearly established, which not only caused huge financial loss to the complainant but also caused her immense harassment & mental agony.

 

15]      Similar facts have been pleaded in other connected complaints, detailed above, and similar evidence has been led. Therefore, in all the five complaint cases, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP is proved.

 

16]      Resultantly, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.8,95,250/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, minus already refunded amount, if any, from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.

17]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.261/2021 – Suman vs. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED), also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.12,41,190/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, minus already refunded amount, if any, from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.

18]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.262/2021 – Gurpreet Singh vs. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED), also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.8,96,625/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, minus already refunded amount, if any, from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization. 

19]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.263/2021 – Gurwinder Kaur vs. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED), also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.12,15,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, minus already refunded amount, if any, from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.

20]      Similarly, the connected consumer complaint i.e. C.C.No.264/2021 – Rajiv Sakhuja vs. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Limited (HOUSEFED), also stands partly allowed and the Opposite Party(OP) is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.8,97,425/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum, minus already refunded amount, if any, from the date of respective deposits till the date of its actual realization.

         This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

21]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per Rules under The Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13.12.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER

as