Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1106/2019

Kamlesh Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma & Mukesh Verma

26 Oct 2020

ORDER

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

============

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/1106/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10/12/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	27/10/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Kamlesh Kaur W/o Sh.Baljinder Singh, Resident of Village Haveli Khurd, Near Beant Singh Nagar, Ropar, Punjab – 140001.

 

2.   Gurpreet Singh S/o Sh.Baljinder Singh, Resident of Village Haveli Khurd, Near Beant Singh Nagar, Ropar, Punjab – 140001.

………. Complainants

Vs

 

M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Limited, through its Managing Director – Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Adab City Centre, SCO No.3, Adjoining YES Bank, Opposite Subway & Café Coffee Day, Kharar, Landran Road, Sector 114, Mohali. Earlier Address: SCO 46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160009.

 ……… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURjEet KaUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the case of the complainants is that they applied for a 2BHK residential flat at second floor in the project of the Opposite Party namely “Premium Trinity Homes” situated at Landran-Bannur Road, Mohali Punjab vide application No. EV/TRP/1011. According to the complainants, the total sale consideration of the said residential floor was Rs.16,00,000/-. The Complainants made the entire payment to the Opposite Party on different dates, which was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 13.11.2017 Annexure C-2 (colly). It has been averred, in the month of June 2018 when the Complainants visited the office of Opposite Party, the same was found closed. Later on, through various sources the Complainants came to know that the Opposite Party had not taken the requisite permission from the concerned authorities for selling the plots. Eventually, the Complainants requested the Opposite Party to refund the entire amount along with interest, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainants have filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      The Opposite Party did not turn up despite service of notice through publication and hence it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.07.2020.

 

4.      Complainants led evidence.  

 

5.      We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Complainants and have also perused the record.   

 

6.      Annexure C-1 which is a copy of the brochure shows the types of Plots offered by the Opposite Party and payment plans thereof.  Ld. Counsel for the Complainants submitted that the Complainants made a payment of Rs.16,00,000/- to the Opposite Party on different dates, but the Opposite Party did not issue receipts of all the dates. However, the Opposite Party issued a letter dated 13.11.2017 acknowledging the payment of Rs.16,00,000/-. Copy of the said letter accounts for Annexure C-2.

 

7.      Ld. Counsel for the Complainants argued that the Opposite Party has not been granted the necessary permissions/approvals from the departments concerned, necessary for the establishment of the project in the year 2014, when the complainants was made to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the first instalment. 

 

8.      In the present case, Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainants and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

 

9.      Thus, in these precincts, it can be safely concluded that the Opposite Party while advertising and offering the proposed project to the prospective buyers including the complainants, did not have the requisite permissions, as is mandatory under the PAPR (Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation) Act, 1995, which creates a bar to all such Real Estate Builders & Developers in not advertising and demanding money from the prospective buyers till they have all the requisite permissions with them. Therefore, the Opposite Party has defaulted in terms of the provisions of PAPR Act, 1995 and therefore is deficient in rendering proper service to the complainants on this score. This act of the Opposite Party can also be termed as an unfair trade practice on their part. 

 

10.      In the light of above facts, the case of the complainants squarely falls under the settled law, as per which the Opposite Party could not start booking of the residential plots, and obtain money from the innocent consumers, before actually the license and all the permissions and sanctions had been granted to them, by the Competent Authority. In case Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., reported as  III(2007) CPJ-7 (NC), it  was held by the Hon’ble National Commission, that a builder should not collect money, from the prospective buyers, without obtaining the required permissions, such as zoning plan, layout plan, and schematic building plan. It is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, such as sanction for construction etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration money from the purchasers of the flats/building. The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. If the bookings are made and the booking amount is collected, before obtaining the necessary sanctions, permissions, licenses and without getting the necessary approvals, the same amount to indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the builder.

 

11.      It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainants is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainants is also writ large. The Opposite Party even did not bother to refund the amount paid by the Complainants, despite their repeated endeavors. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

12.      In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

(i)  To refund the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- to the Complainants with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit(s), till realization.

(ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainants for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

(iii)  To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses. 

13.      This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.
14.      The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

27^th October, 2020                                          Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”