Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/801/2021

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Deepak Aggarwal

22 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	801 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	10.11.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	22.11.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Jarnail Singh son of Sh.Gurdev Singh, House No.21, Ward No.13, Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Metro Plaza, SCO 54-55, Ist Floor, Cabin No. 2, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

   

Site Office:- Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Fashion Technology Park, Sector 90, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab

 

2]  Tejinder Pal Setia, Director of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited, Metro Plaza, SCO 54-55, Ist Floor, Cabin No. 2, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009.

 

3]  Jagbir Singh, Director of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited Metro Plaza, SCO 54-55, Ist Floor, Cabin No. 2, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009

 

4]  Rajat Gupta, Director of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited Metro Plaza, SCO 54-55, Ist Floor, Cabin No. 2, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009.

 

5]  Sumesh Chawla, Director of Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited Metro Plaza, SCO 54-55, Ist Floor, Cabin No. 2, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Present:      Sh.A.S.Parmar, Adv. proxy for Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

 

Ms.Tanya Mahajan, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

OP No.5 exparte

Sh.Mukesh Tomar, Counsel for IRP (Interim Resolution Professional)

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant booked a Residential Flat measuring 2075 sq. ft. in the project of OPs known as Fashion Technology Park, Sector 90, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab by making payment of Rs.5 lacs against its total consideration of Rs.20 lacs (Ann.C-1).  Subsequently, Buyer Developer Agreement (Ann.C-2) was executed between the parties and the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant by 31.12.2010.  Thereafter, the complainant made payment of Rs.5 lacs against receipt Ann.C-3 and Rs.10 lacs vide receipt Ann.c-4 and in this way, the complainant made payment of entire amount of Rs.20 lacs to the OPs.  The OPs also issued provisional allotment letter Ann.C-5.   However, the OPs have failed to raise the construction and deliver the possession of the Unit as per terms of the agreement nor refunded the amount to the complainant despite several visits/requests.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount with interest as well as compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       After service of notice, the OPs No.1 to 4 appeared before this Commission and filed written version inter-alia taking preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and answering OPs; complainant is not consumer; that the complaint cannot be adjudicated in summary procedure and that the project suffered from force majeure.  On merits, it is denied that answering OP ever received any alleged amount from the complainant nor there is any record.  It is pleaded that the said amount has been paid in cash to Sumesh Chawla with whom the complainant entered into Buyer’s Agreement and the said Sumesh Chawla never deposited the said amount in company’s account. It is pleaded that the answering OPs are not under contractual obligation to indemnify the complainant as the complainant has paid the amount in cash, as stated in the complaint to OP No.4 – Sumesh Chawla and neither of any of the amount, as alleged by the complainant has been paid and received at the end of the answering OP.  It is submitted that there is no relation of customer and service provider between the complainant and answering OPs. Lastly, the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The OP No.5 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.4.2023.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       It is important to mention over here that in view of the Order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in IA No.529/2023 and CP(IB) No.248/Chd/Chd/2019 titled as ‘Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited’ and Order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.5533-5534 of 2023 titled ‘Tejinder Pal Setia vs. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. & ors.’, the complainant(s) should approach the Interim Resolution Professional in respect of her/his claim made in the present complaint, if not earlier lodged and shall have liberty to file fresh one, if legally entitled to do so.

         Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed off in above terms with liberty as aforesaid.

7]      The pending application (s), if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22.11.2023                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER