Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/570/2021

Dr. Rajiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Gupta

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/570/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/08/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Associate Professor, H.No.B-3/4 Malviyaya Bhawan, JUIT Campus, Jaypee University of Information Technology, PO :-Waknghat, Distt. Solan (HP)-173234.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/568/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/08/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Raman Garg r/o H.No.2117/6, Jattan Street, Ambala City-134002

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/569/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/08/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Mahesh Goel r/o H.No.83, Ashok Vihar, Ambala City-134003.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Regd Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[4]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/571/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/08/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Amrita Rani w/o Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Associate Professor, H.No.B-3/4 Malviyaya Bhawan, JUIT Campus, Jaypee University of Information Technology, PO :-Waknghat, Distt. Solan (HP)-173234.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[5]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/846/2021
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Ram Karan Sharma s/o Surat Singh r/o H.No.2525, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[6]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/847/2021
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Lalit Mohan Mittal @ Lalit Mittal c/o Sawan International School, Ambala Chandigarh Road, VPO Lalru, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[7]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/848/2021
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Vardha Goyal D/o Rajesh Goyal aged about 17 years, being minor represented through her natural guardian i.e. father Sh.Rajesh Goyal r/o Daisy 203, S+4, Omaxe City, Bhadurgarh-124507.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

[8]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/849/2021
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	04/08/2023

Rajesh Goyal r/o Daisy 203, S+4, Omaxe City, Bhadurgarh-124507.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory, Reg Office : Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village : Dariya, UT, Chandigarh.

IInd Address : Site Office : Village :- Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

2. Sh. Baldev Chand Bansal, Managing Director, BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office : Village : Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Niharika Goel, Vice Counsel for Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. The facts, apart from minor variation here and there, are also almost analogous. All the complainants in the above complaints have sought the relief of refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation etc. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by the parties that captioned complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
2. To dictate the order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No.570 of 2021 titled as Dr. Rajiv Kumar Vs. BCL Homes Ltd. & Another.
3. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that OPs, being real estate developer, had been engaged in the business of selling plots and built-up plots at “Chinar Homes”, situated at Village Kishanpura (Adj. Sector 20, Panchkula), Mohali (hereinafter referred to as “subject project”) and in the year 2011, had advertised in various newspapers regarding the sale of plots and flats.  Allured by such advertisement and assurances, on 8.4.2011 the complainant booked a residential plot of 200 sq.yards (hereinafter referred to as “subject plot”) @ ₹13,000/- per sq. yard in the said project.  It was informed to the complainant by the OPs that the subject project has been fully approved from the concerned competent authority with all the basic amenities like sewerage, water, streetlight, carpeted roads and ample parking. The basic sale price of the subject plot was ₹26,00,000/-, out of which an amount of ₹2,60,000/-, was paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 8.4.2011 (Ex.C-1) being booking amount.  On the same day, OPs had issued allotment/ registration letter (Ex.C-2) to the complainant.  As per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter, the next installment was to be paid after the launching of the project.  However, when the complainant approached the OPs after sometime and asked about the launching date of the project as well as about the execution of the buyer agreement, they did not disclose anything about the same.  Since the day when the complainant requested the OPs to intimate about the launching date of the project, and they could not intimate about the same, the complainant has been requesting the OPs to return the booking amount already paid, but, with no result. In fact, the complainant had booked the subject plot in order to build own house and to settle there with family, but, due to the aforesaid acts of the OPs, all hopes have been shattered. Finally, the complainant had issued legal notice (Ex.C-3) to the OPs requesting them to refund the aforesaid amount, but, with no result. In this manner, OPs have violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “PAPRA”) as they had collected huge amount from the consumers without obtaining the requisite approvals/licences from the competent authority and thereby cheated them.  In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.

       For the sake of brevity, relevant details, necessary for the disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaints i.e. plot size, receipt date, booking amount etc., in respect of each consumer complaint, are tabulated as under :-

S. No.	C.C. No.	Plot size (sq.yd.)	Basic sale price	Booking amount paid	Receipt/ cheque dated	Receipt Exhibit
	CC/570/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	08.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/571/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	08.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/568/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	02.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/569/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	02.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/846/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	28.05.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/847/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	02.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/848/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	08.04.2011	Ex.C-1
	CC/849/2021	200	26,00,000/-	2,60,000/-	02.04.2011	Ex.C-1

 

4. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, cause of action, limitation and also that the complainant does not fall under the definition of a consumer.  On merits, it is denied that an amount of ₹2,60,000/- was received by the OPs from the complainant as booking amount for the subject plot.  It is further denied that the complainant approached the OPs for possession or refund of any amount.  It is also denied that any legal notice was received by the OPs.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
6. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the 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 complainant that he had booked the subject plot with the OPs by paying the booking amount of ₹2,60,000/-, as is also evident from the receipt (Ex.C-1) and the OPs had issued the allotment/registration letter (Ex.C-2) to the complainant, and the OPs have failed to launch the subject project, which fact has been denied by the OPs in their written version, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant had booked the subject plot with the OPs by paying an amount of ₹2,60,000/- as booking amount, out of the total sale consideration, and the OPs have received the said amount without obtaining the approvals/sanctions etc. from the concerned authorities and thereby violated the provisions of PAPRA and the OPs have failed to refund the said amount to the complainant, till date, and the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed. 
   2. Ex.C-1 is the copy of receipt which clearly indicates that OPs had received an amount of ₹2,60,000/- from the complainant. Ex.C-2 is the copy of registration letter which clearly indicates that the subject plot had been registered in the name of complainant by the OPs. Ex.C-3 is the copy of legal notice through which the complainant finally requested the OPs to refund the aforesaid booking amount alongwith interest. On the other hand, OPs have failed to lead any evidence except the affidavit of OP-2.
   3. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that as it stands proved on record that despite of receipt of aforesaid booking amount towards the subject plot by the OPs, they have failed to  launch the subject project, till date, by obtaining the requisite approvals/sanctions etc. from the competent authorities, and have also failed to refund the booking amount, despite of repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
   4. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the OPs that as the complainant has failed to prove on record that any plot was booked by him with the OPs and further that the consumer complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation, the same be dismissed.
   5. There is no force in the contention of OPs as it has been successfully proved on record that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹2,60,000/- to the OPs as booking amount towards the subject plot, which was duly acknowledged by them vide receipt (Ex.C-1), and further proved on record that the OPs had registered said plot in the name of complainant vide registration letter (Ex.C-2). 
   6. Moreover, when it is the case of the complainant that, till date, OPs have not obtained the requisite approvals/sanctions/permissions etc. from the competent authorities for launching the subject project, it is clear that the OPs had collected huge amount from the complainant (and such like other consumers) in violation of the provisions of PAPRA.  Collecting money from the prospective buyers and selling the plots/units in the project, without obtaining the required licence/approvals/clearances/amended clearance is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No.1787 of 2016, decided on 31.5.2018 and the relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.

It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”

7. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 5.7.2018 in which it was held that non delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of amount paid. The above view is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442.
8. Recently, the Hon’ble National Commission in Sanjiv Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Lodha Crown Buildmart Private Limited, II (2023) CPJ 271 (NC) has held that inordinate delay in offer of possession, amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ and home buyer can ask for refund on this ground alone and if unreasonable delay in offer of possession is proved then it is sufficient to grant relief of refund and other grounds are not liable to be examined.  The relevant headnote of the order is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(i) — Housing — Booking of duplex flat — Non-delivery of possession — Deficiency in service — Inordinate delay in offer of possession, amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ and home buyer can ask for refund, on this ground alone — If unreasonable delay in offer of possession is proved then it is sufficient to grant relief of refund and other grounds are not liable to be examined — As there was unreasonable delay in offer of possession, complainants are entitled for refund of full amount under Clause 11.3 of agreement — Home buyer cannot be made to wait for possession of flat for indefinite period — Opposite party is directed to refund entire amount deposited by complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from date of respective deposit till date of payment.”

9. So far as the defence of the OPs that the consumer complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation is concerned, when it has come on record that neither the possession of the fully developed flat/plot was offered to the complainant nor the amount deposited refunded by the OPs, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the complainant.  It was also held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of KNK Promoters & Developers v. S.N. Padmini, IV(2016) CLT 54 (NC) and Saroj Kharbanda v. Bigjo’s Estates Ltd., II(2018) CPJ 146 (NC) that the builder/OPs cannot withhold the amount deposited by the allottee and if it is so, there is continuing cause of action in favour of the allottee to file a complaint seeking refund of the said amount.
10. 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.

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, all the captioned consumer complaints succeed, the same are hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under in each consumer complaint :-

1. to refund the amount ₹2,60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective date(s) of payment (as mentioned in Sr.No.(6) of the table in para No.3 above), till realisation of the same.  However, it is clarified that upon receiving the entire amount awarded under this order, the ownership of the subject plot shall vest with the OPs, for all intents and purposes, and the complainant shall have no right, title or interest in the same in future.
2. to pay an amount of ₹25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9. This order be complied with by OPs within thirty days 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.
10.   A certified copy of this order be also placed on the file of other consumer complaints, mentioned above, which shall form part and parcel of the that file.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 04/08/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member