STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint | : | |
Date of Institution | : | 24.06.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 12.11.2013 |
Renu W/o Sh. Kewal Krishan R/o H.No.176, Ward No.4, Nai Abadi, Khanna, Punjab.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002, through its Managing Director.
2. Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office at SCO No.183-184, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Sr. General Manager.
Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by: Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
2. .
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
“11. That the possession of the said premises is likely to be delivered by the company to the apartment allottee within a reasonable period from the date of this agreement subject to force majeure circumstances, & on receipt of all payments punctually as per agreed terms and on receipt of completed payment of the basic sale price and other charges due and payable up to the date of possession according to the payment plan applicable to him. The Company on completion of the construction shall issue final call notice to the Apartment Allottee who shall within 30 days thereof, remit all dues and take possession of the Apartment. In the event of his failure to take possession for any reason whatsoever, he shall be deemed to have taken possession of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit for purposes of payment of maintenance charges or any other levies on account of the allotted unit, but the actual physical possession shall be given on payment of all outstanding payments as demanded by the Company. The Allottee would be liable to pay holding charge @Rs.5/- per sq ft. per month if he fails to take possession within 30 days from the date of issue of offer of possession.”
18.
19.
“1. Entrance main road is not ready.
2. No parks/garden, no planting there.
3. No society club ready which membership.
4. No swimming pool there.
5. No flooring inside my flat.
6. No bathroom ready of my flat.
7 Most of construction work are going on at
20.
21.
“14.Occupation and completion certificate:- (1) 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 respects 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”.
It was a colony which was developed by the Opposite Parties wherein flats were allotted to various allottees. According to Section 14(1)(ii) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, extracted above, the Opposite Parties were required to obtain the completion and occupation certificates from the Competent Authority. Only after obtaining the completion and occupation certificates from the Competent Authority, as indicated above, legal physical possession of the flat could be said to have been offered to the complainant. Since no completion and occupation certificate was obtained by the Opposite Parties, the offer of possession to the complainant could not be said to be legal. Since the Opposite Parties failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, before offering the possession, they committed an illegality. Such an offer of possession could certainly be said to be illegal on the fact of it. The allottee, after accepting such an offer of possession of the flat, which on the face of it, was wholly and completely illegal, always ran the threat of demolition of the same, thereby putting her hard earned invested amount, in peril. A mere mention of completion of works at the site, in the offer letter (Annexure R-3), did not in itself prove that the development, at the site, had actually been completed. One could really imagine the plight of a person, who had deposited her hard earned money for the purchase of a flat, but later on came to know that there was no development at the site, in question and no completion and occupation certificates had been obtained by the Opposite Parties as per the provisions of relevant law.
22.
23.
24.
25.
The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed to refund the amount of within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The Opposite parties are further, jointly and severally,
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC) shall have the first charge, on the amount to be refunded, to the complainant, by the Opposite parties, to the extent, the amount is due to it, against the complainant as it (HDFC) advanced loan in her (complainant) favour for part payment of the price of flat, in question, under the Tripartite Agreement dated 28.08.2008.
The Opposite Parties are further, jointly and severally, directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant.
In case the payment of amounts, mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii), is not made, within the stipulated period, then the Opposite parties shall be liable to pay the amount mentioned in Clause (i) with interest @12% per annum, instead of 10% P.A., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization and interest @12% per annum, on the
26.
27.
Pronounced.
12th November 2013.
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
AD
STATE COMMISSION
(Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2013)
Argued by: Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Dated the 12th
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this complaint, filed by the complainant, has been partly accepted with costs.
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
