Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1105/2019

Partap Singh Thakur - 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/1105/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10/12/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	26/10/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partap Singh Thakur S/o Sh. Gian Singh Thakur, Resident of House No. 608, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.

 

………. Complainant

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

 

PER SURjEet KaUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the case of the complainant is that he applied for a 2BHK residential top floor (measuring 720 sq. ft.) in the project of the Opposite Party namely “Premium Trinity Homes” situated at Landran-Bannur Road, Mohali Punjab, by paying Rs.2,50,000/-on 02.04.2014. According to the complainant, he was allotted Independent Floor No. EV/TRP/1020. The total sale consideration of the said residential floor was Rs.17,25,000/- out of which till 30.05.2018 the Complainant paid Rs.11,41,400/- vide receipts Annexure C-3 (colly). It has been averred, in the month of June 2018 when the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party, the same was found closed. Later on, through various sources the Complainant came to know that the Opposite Party had not taken the requisite permission from the concerned authorities for selling the plots. Eventually, the Complainant 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 complainant has 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.      Complainant led evidence.   

 

5.      We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Complainant 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 Complainant submitted that the Complainant opted for Payment Plan-A and made a payment of Rs.11,41,400/- to the Opposite Party out of the total sale consideration of Rs.17,25,000/-. Copies of all the receipts accounts for Annexure C-3 (colly).

 

7.      Ld. Counsel for the Complainant 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 complainant was made to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards the first instalment. 

 

8.      In the present case, Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant 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 complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant 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 complainant, 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 complainant 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 complainant 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 Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party even did not bother to refund the amount paid by the Complainant, despite his 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.11,41,400/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of respective deposit(s), till realization.

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

(iii)  To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant 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

26^th October, 2020                                         Sd/-               

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”