Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/969/2022

RUPINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VERA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

HARISH GOYAL

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/969/2022
Date of Institution	:	12/12/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/01/2024

 

Rupinder Kaur Rai, aged 38 years w/o Amandeep Singh Rai r/o #2254, Star Enclave Society, Sector 48C, Chandigarh 160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Vera Developers Pvt. Ltd., having office at Old Kalka Road, Near Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur – 140603 (Punjab) through its Director Karthik Budhiraja
2. Karthik Budhiraja, Director Vera Developers Pvt. Ltd., having office at Old Kalka Road, Near Patiala Chowk, Zirakpur – 140603 (Punjab).
3. Sayam Sapra, Milestone Realtors, House No.729, Sector 91, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
4. Ujjwal Sangwan, House No.5082, F-Block Aero City, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Neetish Handa, Advocate for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OPs 3 & 4 ex-parte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Rupinder Kaur Rai, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OP-1 is a Pvt. Ltd. company by which the project “Lok Awas” is being developed in Sector 74-A, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as “subject project”) and OP-2 is its Director whereas OPs 3 & 4 are its agents.  In the third week of October 2019, OPs 3 & 4 approached the husband of complainant to purchase a flat in their subject project having four category of flats of different sizes with different prices.  Being allured, complainant and her husband had agreed to purchase a 2 BHK Ultima flat @ ₹25.90 lacs. It was assured by OPs 3 & 4 that the complainant will get flat in the management quota for which she has to pay 10% alongwith application and the copy of brochure is Annexure C-1.  On 18/19.10.2019, OPs 3 & 4 got the formalities completed by filling form for said flat and the complainant handed over cheque No.188502 for an amount of ₹2,60,000/- from the saving account of her husband, which was ultimately cleared on 30.10.2019 as per bank statement of account (Annexure C-2) of her husband.  Thereafter, oral conversation was going on between the complainant and OPs 3 & 4 regarding flat No. and ultimately her husband received an email dated 9.11.2019 (Annexure C-3) from OP-1 stating that Unit No.C9-1007 (hereinafter referred to as “subject flat”) has been allotted in the name of the complainant, but, due to heavy rush OP-1 will send the payment receipt later on.  In this manner, through the aforesaid email, OP-1 had confirmed the allotment of subject flat in favour of the complainant. However, till date, no further document was sent by the OPs to the complainant, though they assured her that the project work is going on.  The expected date of possession, as given in the website, was October, 2023. When the complainant went to check her flat, she was shocked when the staff at site office of OP-1 stated that neither any such flat has been allotted in her name nor any amount has been received by them from her qua the same. Thereafter, when the complainant contacted OPs 3 & 4, agents of OP-1, they assured that they can still arrange the flat, but, she has to pay ₹55 lacs for the said flat.  OPs never informed regarding the cancellation of the subject flat to the complainant. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 1 & 2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and also that there is no deficiency in service on their part.  However, it is alleged that payment for booking of the subject flat was received from the husband of the complainant and in the absence of proper application form or relevant documents, which were required to be submitted by the allottee, allotment was bound to be cancelled considering the fact that for three years no communication has been made by the complainant or her husband. It is further alleged that the complainant had applied for a unit in the subject project through property dealer/brokers i.e. OPs 3 & 4 and the subject project was being developed by OP-1. In this manner, complainant has no direct contact with OPs 1 & 2 and copy of brochure (Annexure C-1) might have been picked up by her from anywhere, which is not even updated one.  On merits, facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OPs 3 & 4 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.2.2023.
4. The complainant chose not to file the rejoinder.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that OP-1 had launched the subject project and an amount of ₹2,60,000/- has been received by it from the account of husband of complainant, being booking amount for the subject flat, and till date neither the possession has been delivered to the complainant nor any buyers agreement has been executed with her, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the said acts amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2 and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if OPs 1 & 2 have already cancelled the allotment of the subject flat in favour of the complainant and the consumer, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of OPs 1 & 2.
   2. Annexure C-1 is copy of brochure which indicates that OP-1 has launched the subject project and the special price for the subject flat i.e. 2 BHK Ultima has been shown as ₹25,90,000/-. Annexure C-3 is one of the material documents on record which will determine the real controversy between the parties i.e. email sent by OP-1 to the complainant which clearly indicates that OP-1 has confirmed to the husband of complainant namely Amandeep Singh Rai that unit/flat No.C-9-1007 has been allotted in the name of his wife (i.e. the complainant), but, due to heavy rush, receipt qua the payment made by the addressee will be issued later on, making it clear on record that the subject flat has been allotted to the complainant by OPs 1 & 2, who also acknowledged the payment made by the complainant through her husband i.e. booking amount of ₹2,60,000/-.
   3. Though OPs 1 & 2 have come with the defence that there was no contact between the complainant and OPs 1 & 2, but, since copy of email (Annexure C-3) clearly indicates that OPs 1 & 2 have allotted the subject flat to the complainant by categorically admitting that the same has been allotted to the complainant i.e. the wife of the addressee of the said email Amandeep Singh Rai, it further stands proved on record that OPs 1 & 2 have taken the aforesaid defence qua their no contact with the complainant only for the sake of objection. 
   4. No doubt, OPs 1 & 2 have also come with the defence that they have already cancelled the subject flat as the complainant has not approached them for three years, but, since OPs 1 & 2 have not produced any cogent documentary evidence in support of their defence to prove that the subject flat was cancelled, it is unsafe to hold that the subject flat was ever cancelled by them. 
   5. As the complainant has come with the plea that possession of the subject flat was to be handed over by the contesting OPs by October 2023 and as the subject project has not been developed by them, till date, OPs 1 & 2 be directed to re-allocate  the 2BHK Ultima flat i.e. the subject flat by delivering possession of the same, to our mind as it stands proved on record that OPs 1 & 2 have already allotted the subject flat to the complainant, they are bound to hand over possession of the same on receiving the balance sale consideration alongwith applicable Govt. taxes/charges. Since OPs 1 & 2 have not denied the allotment of the subject flat to the complainant, which otherwise stands proved on record, as discussed above, the aforesaid acts of OPs in not offering possession of subject flat to the complainant, till date, certainly amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part.
   6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OPs 1 & 2.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. To deliver actual physical possession of the subject flat to the complainant, complete in all respects, as well as execute sale deed and in case the subject flat is not in existence or has already been allotted or in actual possession of some third person, to allot another/alternative Ultima flat in similar location, on the same terms and conditions, on receipt of balance sale consideration alongwith other applicable Govt. taxes/charges within a period of three months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the deposited amount w.e.f. the date of payment by the complainant till the date of actual physical possession of the subject flat or alternative flat, as the case may be, complete in all respects.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within three months from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amount, mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
6. The consumer complaint against OPs 3 & 4 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/01/2024 hg		Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
		Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member