Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/516/2015

Amandeep Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Unitech Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sharma

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/516/2015
Date of Institution	:	06/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	26/02/2016

 

1.     Amandeep Sharma son of Shri Surinder Pal Sharma

2.     Jyoti Sharma wife of Shri Amandeep Sharma both resident of House No.9, Adjoining Batta School, Rajpur Colony, Patiala, Punjab.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

1.     Unitech Limited, Head Office at 6 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017, through its Chairman.

2.     Unitech Limited, Marketing Office at SCO No.189-190-191, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, UT, through its Regional manager.

3.     Alice Developer Private Limited Office at Basement, 6 Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Chairman.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Sharma, Counsel for complainants
	:	Smt. Vertika H. Singh, Counsel for OPs

                       

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Amandeep Sharma (husband) and Smt. Jyoti Sharma (wife), complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Unitech Limited and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that in pursuance to the advertisement given by the OPs regarding launching the group housing complex under the name and style of “Gardens” in Uniworld City, Sector 97, Mohali, Punjab, they approached the OPs and on their assurances agreed to purchase a flat.  The complainants submitted application dated 24.1.2012 alongwith different cheques totaling Rs.4,11,000/-. Thereafter the OPs issued the allotment letter dated 31.2.2012 vide which the complainants were allotted flat No.0204 in Block C-2 at Gardens (Sector-97) Uniworld City, Mohali for total consideration of Rs.45,83,475/-.  The complainants further made payments of Rs.4,41,914/- vide cheques dated 10.4.2012 and Rs.4,47,278/- vide cheques dated 29.6.2012 to the OPs on their demand.  The complainants have averred that as per the agreement dated 23.3.2012, OPs assured to deliver possession within 36 months, but, they failed to do so despite receipt of payment of Rs.13,00,192/- from them.  In January 2015, when the complainants visited the site, they were surprised that there was no construction activity going on and as such sought refund of the amount paid by them, but the OPs failed to do so despite service of legal notice dated 30.1.2015.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their joint written reply, OPs have not disputed the factual matrix of the case.  However, it has been denied that the OPs gave any assurance to the complainants regarding possession of the flat.  It has been averred that the period of 36 months as per clause 4.a(i) of the agreement was tentative and the same was subject to force majeure circumstances.  It has been contended that the OPs could not hand over the possession of the plot due to reasons of Global meltdown of the economy worldwide. It has been further contended that the OPs are facing problems with regard to providing electricity in the said area as PSPCL has been raising objections on one pretext or other, but, despite all the odd conditions the OPs are making every endeavor to complete the development work at the site and making sincere efforts to hand over possession of the said plot to the complainants.  It has been stated that as per clause 8(b) of the agreements, OPs are entitled for extension of time and as per clause 4.C(ii), OPs are liable to pay charges @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area of the apartment for the period of delay in offering possession of the flat beyond the period of 36 months.  It has been denied that the complainants ever approached them or made any request regarding refund of the amount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
5.         The case of the complainants is that they deposited an amount of Rs.13,00,192/- in total towards part payment for the purchase of the apartment in question.  Annexure C-15 dated 31.1.2012 is the allotment letter issued by the OPs in the name of the complainants. As per the case of the complainants, the last date of handing over the possession of the said apartment was within 36 months of the signing of the flat buyer agreement dated 23.3.2012, but, till date no construction work has been started. Even the legal notice dated 30.1.2015 (Annexure C-29) with a request for refund of the amount deposited was never received by the OPs.
6.         The stand taken by the OPs is that the period of 36 months as per clause 4.a(i) of the agreement was tentative and the same was subject to force majeure circumstances.  It has been contended that the OPs are facing problems with regard to providing of electricity in the said area as the concerned department is raising objections on one pretext or the other.  It has been further contended that despite all the odd conditions, the OPs are making every possible effort to complete the development works at the site. 
7.         After going through the file, it is evident from article 4 of the buyer’s agreement (at page 51 of the paperbook) that in clause 4.a. under the heading “delivery of possession” it is clearly mentioned that the possession of the apartment is proposed to be offered to the allottees within 36 months of the signing of these presents, subject to force majeure circumstances.  It is also an admitted fact that the possession was not delivered due to lack in development works. We are of the opinion that as the possession of the flat has not been delivered on time as per the buyer’s agreement, hence the OPs are liable for deficiency in rendering service to the complainants.  The OPs have miserably failed to abide by the commitments and they cannot take benefit of their own wrong. As per clause 4.a.(i) of the buyer’s agreement though it was not a definite commitment by the OPs that the possession of the premises shall be delivered within 36 months of the date of the agreement, still the OPs have not clearly presented as to what were the force majeure circumstances due to which the offer of possession could not be made to the complainants till today. We feel that the action of the OPs in taking advance money from innocent consumers like the complainants for their proposed project, despite the fact that they were not having requisite permissions for the same, clearly points out towards unfair trade practice on their part.  Hence, the act of the OPs in keeping the money of the complainants with them for a long time and not refunding the same despite various requests certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the complainants.
8.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To refund of the amount of Rs.13,00,192/- to the complainants;

(ii)    To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants;

(iii)   To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month 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 @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
26/02/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member