Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/483/2020

Sonia Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Malkiat Singh

06 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/483/2020
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2022

Sonia Rani w/o Shri Sukhdev Singh s/o Shri Surjan Singh r/o House No.1882, Sector 21, Panchkula, Haryana.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Limited, Registered Office Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, UT, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Signatory.

2^nd Postal Address: Flat No.3, Ground Floor, Tower-A, Chinar Homes, Peer Muchhalla, Zirakpur-140603.

2. BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpur (Adj.Sector-20, Panchkula), NAC Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab, through its Directors Tajinder Kumar Bansal, Rajeev Kumar.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal r/o #253, Sector-7, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109.

… Opposite Parties

[2]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/484/2020
Date of Institution	:	15/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2022

Rajat Turka s/o Shri Malkiat Singh r/o House No.73, Shivalik Enclave, Sector-13, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, UT.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. BCL Homes Limited, Registered Office Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, UT, Chandigarh, through its Authorised Signatory.

2^nd Postal Address: Flat No.3, Ground Floor, Tower-A, Chinar Homes, Peer Muchhalla, Zirakpur-140603.

2. BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpur (Adj.Sector-20, Panchkula), NAC Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab, through its Directors Tajinder Kumar Bansal, Rajeev Kumar.
3. BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal r/o #253, Sector-7, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Malkiat Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs 1 & 2 ex-parte
	:	None for OP-3 (defence struck off)

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.     By this order, we propose to dispose of the captioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and fact are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.483 of 2020 titled as Sonia Rani Vs. BCL Homes Ltd. & Ors.
3.     Briefly stated allegations are, based on the demonstration shown by the salesman of the OPs, complainant entered into an agreement and purchased plot measuring 200 sq. yards @₹13,000/- per sq. yard and paid ₹2,60,000/- as registration fee in Wonder Growth Plan 2 vide receipt dated 22.4.2011. BCL Homes Ltd. was promoter of the project at Zirakpur and created web page with details of the proposed project and assured the public regarding completion of all formalities in Punjab State Government and obtained all approvals and permissions, certificates and other mandatory requirements. Subsequently the complainant came to know that OPs had made fraud with the public as the project was never started and it was only on paper. Accordingly, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs calling them to refund the amount deposited alongwith interest, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant complaint.    
4.     Registered notices were sent to OPs 1 & 2 which were presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OPs 1 & 2, therefore, vide order dated 2.2.2021 of this Commission, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
5.     Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of all the OPs on 2.8.2021 (though OPs 1 & 2 had already been proceeded against ex-parte) and she was allowed to join subsequent proceedings. However, reply and evidence on behalf of OP-3 were not filed despite opportunity. Therefore, vide order dated 15.2.2022, defence of OP-3 was struck off.
6.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.
8.     It is evident from record that the complainant booked a plot in the project of the OPs and paid an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- being 10% of the total amount and Annexure C-1 is the copy of the receipt dated 22.4.2011 in respect of the same. It has been contended that despite assurance of the OPs that it had taken all the requisite permissions and approvals required for selling apartments and plots in the project, they failed to develop the project in question within stipulated period. It has further been contended that on the date of receiving earnest money from the complainant, OPs were not having requisite permissions and approvals and even till date they have failed to obtain the same which is violation of the provisions of the PAPRA Act.  Since OPs failed to develop the project and hand over possession to the complainant within the stipulated period, therefore, the complainant requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount, but to no avail. The complainant in support of her contentions made in the complaint tendered her duly sworn affidavit.
9.     OPs 1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte and defence of OP-3 was struck off as it failed to file reply and evidence despite numerous opportunities. The act of OPs draws adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of OPs and non filing of reply and evidence shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted qua the OPs.
10.     As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. In this regard, reliance can be had on the judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land.”

11.     We are of the considered view that a consumer is not expected to wait indefinitely for no fault on his/her part. The complainant has been harassed a lot by the OPs in accepting money from her, but, taking no steps to complete the project.  Failure on the part of the OPs to honour their commitments, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation for the harassment undergone by her.
12.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund ₹2,60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization;
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. 

13.     This order be complied with by the 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.
14.     The other consumer complaint (CC No.484 of 2020), mentioned above, is also partly allowed with aforementioned similar reliefs.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/04/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member