Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/283/2020

Snimer - Complainant(s)

Versus

WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Goyal & Sanyam Bhardwaj

10 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/283/2020
Date of Institution	:	20.8.2020
Date of Decision	:	10/1/2024

 

1. Snimer aged about 28 years D/o Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath. Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590, Sector 30 (w). Chandigarh.

 

2. Dalip Kaur aged about 58 years w/o Sh. Gurnam Singh R/o Begowal (Near Panchayat Ghar) Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now resident of House No.5590, Sector 30 (w). Chandigarh.

.......Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1. WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI. SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director Baljit Singh Sandhu.

 

2. Baljit Singh Sandhu, Managing Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar. Mohali.

 

3. Rajiv Bajaj, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12. Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

4. Devinder Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd.. A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

5. Parvinder Singh Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12. Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

6. Kiranvir Sandhu, Director, WWICS Estates Pvt. Ltd., A-12, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

......Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for complainants.
	:	Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate for OPs.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant booked one plot No. P-26, measuring 151.81 sq. yds at Imperial County, Kurali, Punjab. The total cost of the plot was Rs.17,75,815/-  and the complainant at the time of booking made the full payment of the plot and nothing was remained due as mentioned in the allotment letter Annexure C-1.  As per Allotment-cum-Agreement the possession of the plot was to be deliverd within 12 months after completing the development work from the date of allotment-cum-agreement. All other expenses including stamp duty for executing the sale deed  was to be borne by the OPs. It is alleged that despite of payment of full payment and making several requests and representation dated 15.6.2020 the OPs have not handed over the possession of the plot till date to the complainant on the lame excuses. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties in its reply stated that the answering have not received any monetary consideration from the complainant.  It is averred that complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party, as a matter of fact, one Mr. Gurnam Singh (Father of Complainant) who introduced himself as Senior Officer in E.D. Department and told that he is being posted as Deputy Director, E.D. Department, Sector 18, Chandigarh, had visited the Office of the answering respondents alongwith the present complainants i.e. Snimer (Daughter) and Dalip Kaur (Wife) and showed their interest in buying one Residential Plot in Project namely Imperial County, Kurali, Mohali, being launched by the answering respondent company, however the said Gurnam Singh, has not got impleaded himself in the present Complaint, thus the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party.  It is alleged that the said Gurnam Singh at the time of visit, introduced himself as a Senior Officer in E.D. Department and after discounts, an amount of Rs. 17,75,815/- was settled  for the said plot and the said Gurnam Singh requested the OP Company to make the Allotment Letter & Agreement of the said Plot in the name of Snimer & Dalip Kaur, the said documents were taken away by Gurnam Singh and he informed the OP Company that he would be sending the draft/Cheque as regards the payment of the said plot, however neither any Draft nor any Cheque was delivered as promised by Gurnam Singh and the present Complainants. The Sales Team contacted the present Complainants and Gurnam Singh a number of times with regard to the payment of the said plot and finally the OPs Company was informed that certain inquiries were being carried out by CBI against Gurnam Singh and the present Complainant No. 2 with regard to their Source of Income and accordingly, Gurnam Singh informed the OP Company that they would not be able to buy the said plot in question and the same be treated as cancelled, thus the documents as annexed by the Complainant in his Complaint stood cancelled as no payment was ever made by the Complainant as promised. Accordingly in view of the facts stated above, there is no cause of action arising to the present complainant to file the present complaint as both the parties are not covered under the definition of Consumer and Service Provider and the same is liable to be dismissed as such.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. The grouse of the complainants through the present complaint is that despite of payment of Rs.17,75,815/-   in the year 2011  towards the residential plot in question to the OPs  the possession of the same has not been handed over to the complainants within the period stipulated  in the allotment-cum-agreement and even till today.
7. The stand taken by the Ops is that  the complainants have never made any payment towards the plot in question and as such no cause of action has arisen against the OPs.
8.  After going through the record it is evident from Annexure C-1 copy of allotment cum agreement for residential plot in question  in the township project “Imperial County”  dated 15.11.2011  that the complainants paid an amount of Rs.17,75,815/-   towards the entire sale consideration of the plot in question which is evident from page 23 of the paper book  and plot No.26 measuring 151.8 sq. yards “imperial County”  was allotted to the complainants. There is further mention that all charges including stamp duty, official fees, extra towards sale deed and for documentation will be paid by the OPs.  The allotment letter issued by the Ops is duly signed by both the parties.  The Ops has alleged that the complainants has placed on record forged and fabricated document and no payment has been received by them and Mr. Gurnam Singh the father of the complainant No.1 and husband of complainant No.2 has taken away the documents on some pretext  but no such  communication or complaint or SMS has been placed on record by the OPs  proving their version.
9. The OPs have taken the objection that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainants and the OPs.  However, the allotment letter itself proves that the Ops have received the entire sale consideration towards the plot in question from the complainants and  they had to hand over the possession of the same within  12 months  or within extended period of 6 months from the date of signing of the allotment cum agreement dated 15.11.2011. Meaning thereby  the possession of the plot in question was to be handed over in the month of May 2013 but till date no such effort  has been made by the OPs.
10. The next objection raised by the Ops is with regard to non-joinder of necessary party i.e. sh. Gurnam Singh the father of complainant No.1 and husband of complainant No.2. A perusal of allotment-cum-agreement  of the plot in question reveals that the physical possession of the plot in question was to be handed over to both the complainants and not to Sh. Gurnam Singh, therefore, there is no merit in the aforesaid objection of the OPs and the same stands rejected being not tenable.
11. Now coming to merit of the case. As discussed above the possession of the plot in question was to be handed over to the complainants by the OPs within 18 months from the date of signing of allotment-cum-agreement  which has not been delivered till date by the Ops. It may be stated here that it is settled law that onus to prove the stage and status of construction and development work at the project site and that all the permissions/approvals have been obtained in respect thereof, is on the builder/developer. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. As stated above, it is very strange that in the present case not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record by opposite parties to prove that the project in question is complete and even the development works and basic amenities have been completed at the project site. In case,  development/construction activities were undertaken and completed at the project site by the stipulated date or till the date of filing complaint by the complainants or even thereafter, then it was for opposite parties, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, the construction of the plot in question, all these development/construction activities, are completed at the site or not but it failed to do so.
12. Furthermore, Section 14 of Punjab plot and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA") deals with responsibility of the builder/promoter to obtain completion and occupation certificate from the competent authority, which reads as under:

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate."

 

13.  However, in the present case, no completion certificate and occupation certificate, if any, issued by the competent authority has been produced by opposite parties on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA. Vide letter dated 13.06.2020, Annexure C-2, the complainants requested opposite parties to deliver the possession of the plot. In this letter, they also stated that on visiting the site number of times, it is found that the project work is not completed yet despite the fact that they have fully paid the entire price on 15.11.2011 itself. Even, no documents have been placed on record by opposite parties to show that they have communicated the status of the completion of the project/project report, along with proof of development to the complainants at any point of time. The complainants have already paid the entire sale price and other charges. Opposite parties have further failed to prove, by placing any document on record, that the development of the project was completed within the stipulated timeframe. However, there was no whisper of offer of possession from the side of opposite parties 5. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities and the position stated above, without issuance of such a certificate by the competent authority, opposite parties cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants. However, in the instant case, the possession has still not been offered to the complainants and there has been a huge delay in offering the same, what to talk of its delivery.
14. Apart from what has been discussed above, it is the case of opposite parties that the complainants and Sh. Gurnam Singh informed the Company that they would not be able to buy the said plot in question and the same be treated as cancelled and the matter was closed but there is nothing on record to establish the same. It is further pleaded that CBI case has been registered against complainant No.1 and Sh. Gurnam Singh for having acquired assets disproportionate, to his known sources of income through corrupt and illegal means by abusing his official position. On the other hand, in the replication filed, the complainants have stated that opposite parties are relying upon FIR dated 27.11.2017 and it was stated that Sh. Gurnam Singh had refused to purchase the plot but present allotment letter is dated 15.11.2011, which means that (although not admitted) from 15.11.2011 to 27.1.2017 for six years, opposite parties have been making requests to Sh. Gurnam Singh and after that, Sh. Gurnam Singh stated that he would not be able to buy the plot, which is again highly improbable. It is further stated that all is just a false affidavit by the opposite parties just to deny the claim of the complainant.
15. In this regard, it may be stated that registration of FIR has nothing to do with the instant case. It is proved on record that  as per Annexure C-1 the payment of the amount made by the complainants to be valid and legal. Whatever allegations have been leveled in the FIR is the subject matter of investigation, which in our considered view, has no bearing on the merits of the case. It is a simple case of not offering or delivering possession of the plot in question to the complainants. Therefore, this Commission is not going into the allegations made in the FIR.
16. As already stated above, once it is established on record that the complainants have paid the entire sale consideration, therefore, the action of opposite parties by not handing over the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant is deficiency in service on their part.
17. Thus, in view of findings given above, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the plot in question and the project is complete in all respects and also in the absence of any completion or occupation certificate, it can safely be said that there is gross deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
18. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to deliver the actual physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant complete in all respects  after obtaining occupation and completion certificate from the competent authorities within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the Ops are failed to  hand over the possession to the complainant as directed above then they shall refund the amount of Rs.17,75,815/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the respective date of deposit till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

19.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 3 months 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 this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No. (iii) above.
20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
21.  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