DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:749 of 2010] Date of Institution : 18.11.2010 Date of Decision :05.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Sunil Kumar Sehgal son of Late Sh. Bihari Lal Sehgal resident of House No.36-C, Top Floor, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. The Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Limited, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 through Managing Director. 2. The Taneja Developers & Infrastructures Limited, SCO No.1098-1099, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through Manager Marketing. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Samir Pahwa, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.. H. S. Lalli, Advocate for the OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Sunil Kumar Sehgal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To refund a sum of Rs.5,77,500/- along with interest @24% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation. iv) To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as legal fee on account of legal notice; v) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as future litigation expenses; 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that OP M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. invited applications for allotment of residential flat in Group Housing Project in Mohali and Kharar. In response to the said scheme, the complainant applied for the allotment of two bed room flat in the Group Housing Project (Triple Storey), Mohali. The application of the complainant was accepted and in response, he deposited the initial amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs. It has further been pleaded that as per terms and conditions of letter (Annexure C-1), the area of the flat was to be 1000-1100 Sq. Feet, having price @Rs.1,650/- per Sq. Feet. The complainant was also intimated by the OP vide letter dated 7.1.2008 that the project in the name of TDI City Mohali has been approved. The complainant vide letter dated 30.1.2008 was asked to make the outstanding due. In response to the said letter, the complainant deposited the remaining amount of Rs.2,77,500/- with the OPs. The copy of schedule was supplied to the complainant on 9.2.2008 mentioning therein the total cost of the flat as Rs.19,25,000/-. The complainant was allotted Priority No.58. OPs thereafter, demanded a sum of Rs.2,20,085/- from the complainant as they increased the area of the flat to 1186 Sq. feet. The complainant represented against this demand of OPs on 25.3.2010 and pointed out the conditions of the allotment of flat. However, no response was received by the complainant qua his representation. According to the complainant, he received a reminder on 4.9.2010 whereby OPs again raised the earlier demand of Rs.2,20,085/- and asked for execution of an apartment/flat buyer agreement. The complainant contacted one Sh. Rohan Dutt Sharma, Manager Marketing and enquired from him as to when OPs are going to handover the possession of the flat in question. It was informed that there is nothing on the spot in question and no foundation has been laid down with regard to Group Housing Flat. According to the complainant, OPs informed him that the Bhoomi Poojan etc. had been done in the year 2008 but till date, not even a single brick has been laid by the OPs at the site in question. Left with no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.7.2010 upon the OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written reply filed by OPs, a specific preliminary objection has been taken as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. However, on merits, the factum of accepting the application of the complainant along with Rs.3 Lacs has been admitted. It has also been admitted that the complainant subsequently paid a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- vide cheque dated 15.3.2008. It has been pleaded that the complainant has deliberately withheld letter dated 11.12.2007 whereby an offer was made to give priority in allotment to him for a residential flat in the forthcoming township projects of OP. It has been specifically denied that as per the schedule of payment, the grand total of flat was given as Rs.19.25 Lacs. It has been pleaded that neither the grand total of the flat was given to him on 9.2.2008 nor the payment of schedule was given on the said date. It has been admitted that earlier the rate was settled at Rs.1,650/- per sq. feet but thereafter, a demand of Rs.2,20,085/- was raised on account of increase in the area of the flat to 1185 Sq. Feet. As regards the delay in developing the area in question, it is pleaded that OPs had purchased 115 acres of land apart from the agreements executed by certain other land owners to sell their land. The application of OP for Change of Land Use (CLU) was accepted and CLU regarding 131.318 acres of land was granted on 22.12.2006. The Layout plan was approved by the competent authority on 25.3.2008. According to OPs, they are required to develop the Mega Housing Project in accordance with the Industrial Policy 2003. They are required to pay external development charges in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short hereinafter to be referred as 1995 Act). They have to obtain an approval of lay out plan under the provision of 1995 Act. According to OPs, the building plans are regulated by the competent authority under the provisions of Punjab Urban Development and Planning Authority Building Rules, 1995. OPs further pleaded that they are in continuous process of developing the area in accordance with the provision of Industrial Policy 2003. After approval of CLU for 27 acres of more land on 12.8.2009, OPs have also got approved the layout plan of 184.8 acres on 20.11.2009. It is averred that OPs never assured the complainant that the possession of the flat would be handed over to him in the year 2008. According to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The first argument advanced by learned counsel for the OPs is that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this matter. So, the complaint itself deserves dismissal on this score alone. Our attention has been drawn to Annexures C-1 and C-7. It is argued that both these letters have been addressed to Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001 and, thus, according to the learned counsel the application was given by the complainant for the allotment of flat at Delhi and the money was also deposited at Delhi. So, according to learned counsel for the OPs, no cause of action has accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh. In these circumstances, it has been argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Otherwise also, according to the learned counsel for the OPs, the flat sought to be purchased is located at Mohali (Punjab). 6. To our mind, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs has no force. Annexures C-2 and C-5 are the receipts regarding receipt of cheques of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,77,500/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh respectively. From these receipts, it is apparent that the complainant is having his account in U.T.I Bank at Chandigarh and the amount was debited from the account of the complainant at Chandigarh. So, a part of cause of action had accrued at Chandigarh. Therefore, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. 7. The next question arises is whether there is deficiency on the part of OPs or not. Admittedly, the complainant had applied for a flat and had paid the registration fee of Rs.3,00,000/- on 24.10.2006 along with his application for allotment. He subsequently deposited an amount of Rs.2,77,500/- on 15.3.2008 against the 2nd Installment.. No doubt that there is no agreement on record to prove that the flats were to be delivered by a specific date, however, a period of approximately five years has already expired and admittedly, the possession of the flat has not been delivered to the complainant. There is nothing on record to prove that the flats have actually been constructed and ready for delivery. 8. In these circumstances, to our mind, the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period. So, in such circumstances, the complainant has a right to demand for the refund of the amount paid by him. Thus, non payment of the remaining installments is of no consequence. In these circumstances, non refund of the amount paid by the complainant along with interest as agreed upon vide letter (Annexure C-1) amounts to deficiency in service. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OPs: - (i) to refund an amount of Rs.5,77,500/- to the complainant along with interest 12% per annum from the date of respective deposits till actual payment. (ii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony. (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.6,27,500/- i.e. (Rs.5,77,500 + Rs.50,000) to the complainant along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the dates of respective deposits till its realization besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 5th September, 2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
[Complaint Case No:749 of 2010] ORDER Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 30.08.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 05.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
