DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                     Consumer Complaint No.550  of 2018

                                                Date of institution:  15.05.2018                                              Date of decision   :  01.12.2021

Major General D.R. Sehgal son of Late Shri Dewan J.R. Sehgal, resident of B-10/7218, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Sector 90, SAS Nagar, Mohali, District Mohali through its Director/Authorised Representative.

        IInd Address

        Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, SCO 196-197, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its Director/Authorised Representative. 

2.     Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited,  Now at Fashion Technology Park, Next to BSF Housing Complex, Sector 90, SAS Nagar Mohali, District Mohali through its Director/Authorised Representative.

        IInd Address:

        Greenfield Sites Management Private Limited,  SCO 249, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh through its Director/Authorised Representative.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

           Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member

Present:    Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 Ex-parte.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that OPs are situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission. It is alleged, that till date neither the possession of the unit has been handed over to the CC nor any refund of the deposited amount is given, which he had deposited with the OPs. As such there is a continuous cause of action in favour of the CC. It is averred that the CC after retirement from defence services, was looking for a fixed source of income by self employing himself. The CC planned to open his own security agency for providing security services to offices and companies. The CC came across an advertisement of the OPs in this regard. The CC as per offer of the OPs, deposited an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- vide receipt dated 25.10.2006 alongwith the application. OP No.1 acknowledged the application of the CC and informed the CC that he is eligible for buy back option.    The CC was allotted one unit in the “Design Studio in the Fashion Technology Park” allegedly constructed by the OPs  under the Small Investor Scheme and was allotted 125 sq. ft. super area in the Design Studio.  The agreement was also executed between the CC and the OPs on 06.01.2007.  The CC was appraised that OP No.2 was mandated by Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited to manage the lease transactions for the said unit and a lease agreement was also entered into between the CC and OP No.2. The OPs received total amount of Rs.4,75,000/- from the CC.  It is alleged that as per the agreement, the OPs were to deliver the possession of the unit within 30 months from the date of start of construction and the OPs, started the construction work on 19.07.2007 and the date of completion of the project was 18.01.2010, which is clear from Clause-28 of the agreement between the parties. It is alleged, that as per Clause-28 of the agreement in case the possession of the unit is not given within 30 months from the date of construction, the developer was to compensate the buyer by paying him Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area of the unit as compensation. It is further averred that the OPs vide letter dated 22.06.2009 updated the status of the project, which according to the CC, proves that at the time of making agreement, the OPs were not in possession of any permissions/approvals and also even at the time of receiving installments from the CC the position was the same. It is alleged that the OPs acted in contravention to the provisions of PAPRA Act which is binding on the OPs. The CC was given assurance by the OPs that he would get buyback offer amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs but till date no such intimation has been received by the CC despite his repeated visits to the office of the OPs.  

                Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:

(i)     either the OPs to make payment of buyback offer amount of Rs.7.50 lakhs

                                OR

        to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation.

(ii)    The CC has also sought compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month from 01.07.2020 till buy back amount is received by the CC with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith Rs.1.00 lakh on account of mental agony etc. and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The complaint of the CC is duly supported by affidavit of the CC.

2.             In reply the OP No.1 has raised number of preliminary objections and has challenged the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction etc. It is averred that the CC who is a retired Major General wanted to start some business, as such he is not a consumer. Moreover, the complaint is challenged on the grounds there are complicated questions of facts and law involved which require cross examination and detailed evidence of the parties.  It is averred that the project of the OP has delayed because of conditions absolutely beyond the control of the OP. It is averred that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 26.03.2003 notified an industrial policy offering various concessions to attract private investment and participation, for creation of infrastructure for which certain incentives were to be provided to facilitate the investors and promoters for development of the industry in the State. It is further averred that the OP No.1 submitted a proposal to the Govt. of Punjab for setting up a Techno Knowledge Park for Fashion Technology in Mohali with permission to use 60% of the area for industrial spaces/design studios/offices, 30% for residential purposes and 10% for commercial purpose.  It is averred that OP No.1 submitted a representation against the demand raised by GMADA, however, the work for commercial tower continued. A buyer development agreement was executed between OP No.1 and the CC for sale of one flat which stipulated that a provisional allotment letter would be issued subject to the directions, rulings, provisions and terms and conditions laid down in the Industrial Policy, 2003, approval letters and rules and regulations framed so far or to be framed in future by the Department of Industry and Commercial, Govt. of Punjab by which the project has been approved. It is averred that M/s. Star Constructions left the work in between and thus OP No.1 searched for a new contractor to construct and complete its project including the flat of the CC. The OP started negotiations with M/s.  Ionic Realty Limited for development of the project.  GMADA vide letter dated 31.10.2012 informed the OP No.1 that the application for issuance of NOC for the sanction of revised plan would be considered only after OP No.1 deposit an amount of Rs.2,69,73,475/- as license fee and Rs.9,04,316/- as social infrastructure fund, which was completely a new demand. A Civil Writ Petition No.4856 of 2014 titled as Rupinder Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others was filed before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein an order for status quo was passed with respect to the subject land of the OP company. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 did not appear even after publication and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.09.2019.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the CC Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. On the other hand, OP No.1 submitted documents Ex.OP-1and Ex.OP-2.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and have perused the record very minutely.

6.             It is specifically alleged by the CC that in order to earn his livelihood he purchased a unit from the OPs. It is further proved on the file that the CC has deposited an amount to the tune of Rs.4.75 lakhs with the OPs. It is admitted fact that OP No.2 was mandated by OP No.1 to manage the lease transactions for the said unit and a lease agreement was also entered  upon between the CC and OP No.2 in this regard. We have perused the buyers agreement minutely. It is there in the agreement that the possession of the unit was to be delivered within 30 months from the date of start of construction and the construction was started on 19.07.2007 and it can be presumed that the date of completion of the project was 18.01.2010. The counsel for the CC has brought our attention to Clause-28 of the agreement wherein it is clearly mentioned that if there is delay in handing over possession of the unit beyond 30 months from the date of start of construction, except for other reasons, the developer shall compensate the buyer by paying him Rs.50/- per sq. ft. per month of super area of the unit as compensation.  Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has also passed a judgment in case titled as Amninder Deep Singh & Another Vs. Chandigarh Overseas Private Ltd. & another, in CC No.227 of 2018 decided on 27.09.2018 that in such circumstances, as mentioned in the present case, the CC is definitely entitled to compensation as well as the refund of amount. There is definitely a huge delay in completing the project and the OP No.1 has not produced any evidence for delay in completion of the project.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 has failed to bring any documentary evidence in support of its version to the satisfaction of this Commission. Further till date no evidence is adduced by the OPs pertaining to the status of the project. No completion and occupation certificate is furnished by the OPs. It is also noticed that no permission and approval of the project in which the land has been located, is produced.  This further shows the malafide intention of the OPs and proves that the OPs have collected money from innocent consumers by showing them, only papers and there is nothing on the ground. Even the CC can file criminal complaint against the OPs, if he so desire. There is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence furnished by the OPs to prove that the CC is involved in sale or purchase of any property. In the absence of any such cogent evidence, the contention of the OPs is out rightly rejected.

8.             Accordingly the present complaint is allowed and the OPs jointly and severally are directed to refund to the CC the amount to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposit till realisation. The OPs are jointly and severally further burdened to pay a consolidated compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to the CC. Compliance of this order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of free certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.

Announced

December 01, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       I agree.

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member