Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/36/2022

Mr. Devinder Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Walia Adv.

10 Aug 2023

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Addl. Bench]

 

[1]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/36/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	11/04/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	10/08/2023

 

 

 

 

[1]    Devinder Sandhu son of Col. B.S. Sandhu, Resident of House No. 292, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

 

[2]    Smt. Dilraj Sandhu wife of Sh. Devinder Sandhu, Resident of House No. 292, Sector 10, Chandigarh. 

 

…. Complainants

 

VERSUS

 

 

[1]    M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office House  No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Auth. Signatory.

 

[2]    Sudhir Chadha son of Sh.K.L. Chadha, Resident of House No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited. 

 

[3]    THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033, through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer.

 

 

[4]    Sanjay Dutt, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033.

 

…… Opposite Parties

[5]    The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Mohali, having its office at Village Kansal, P.O. Nada, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Regd. No. 2527 of 1995 through its President.

 

…… Proforma Opposite Party

 

[6]    M/s RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Sh. Sudhir Chadha, House No. 591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY             PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by S/Sh. K.S. Rupal & Raman Walia, Advocate for Complainants.
		Sh. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Tanvi Dhul, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and Opposite Party No.6 (Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte vide order dated 04.07.2022).
		Sh. Amit Jhanjhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Eliza Gupta, Sh. Mayank Aggarwal, Ms. Rubina Virmani and Sh. Deepak Poonamiya, Advocates for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.
		Sh. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.5.

 

[2]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/54/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	12/07/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	10/08/2023

 

 

 

 

 

Col. B.S. Sandhu son of Gulzar Singh, Resident of House No. 3539, Sector 69, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

…. Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

[1]    THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033, through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer.

 

[2]    Sanjay Dutt, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033.

 

[3]    M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office House  No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Auth. Signatory.

 

[4]    Sudhir Chadha son of Sh.K.L. Chadha, Resident of House No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited. 

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

[5]    The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Mohali (Regd.), having its office at Village Kansal, P.O. Nada, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, through its President/ Vice President/ Secretary/ Executive Member/Auth. Signatory.

 

…… Proforma Opposite Party

 

BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY             PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by S/Sh. K.S. Rupal & Raman Walia, Advocate for Complainant.
		Sh. Amit Jhanjhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Eliza Gupta, Sh. Mayank Aggarwal, Ms. Rubina Virmani and Sh. Deepak Poonamiya, Advocates for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
		Sh. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Tanvi Dhul, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.
		Sh. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.5.

[3]

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/55/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	12/07/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	10/08/2023

 

 

 

 

Dilraj Sandhu wife of Devinder Sandhu, Resident of House No. 292, Sector 10, Chandigarh.

…. Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

 

[1]    THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033, through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer.

 

[2]    Sanjay Dutt, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of THDC Limited, E-Block, Voltas Premises, T.B. Kadam Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033.

 

[3]    M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office House  No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, through its Director/Managing Director/Chairman/Auth. Signatory.

 

[4]    Sudhir Chadha son of Sh.K.L. Chadha, Resident of House No.591-A, 1^st Floor, Sector 18, Chandigarh, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited. 

…… Opposite Parties

[5]    The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Mohali (Regd.), having its office at Village Kansal, P.O. Nada, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, through its President/ Vice President/ Secretary/ Executive Member/Auth. Signatory.

 

…… Proforma Opposite Party

BEFORE: PADMA PANDEY             PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Kawaljeet Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by S/Sh. K.S. Rupal & Raman Walia, Advocate for Complainant.
		Sh. Amit Jhanjhi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Eliza Gupta, Sh. Mayank Aggarwal, Ms. Rubina Virmani and Sh. Deepak Poonamiya, Advocates for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
		Sh. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Tanvi Dhul, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.
		Sh. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for Opposite Party No.5.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1.         By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid three consumer complaints, filed by the respective complainants. Arguments in the said complaints were heard in common, on 07.07.2023. In all the complaints, referred to above, issues involved, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, therefore, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

 

2.         To dictate order, facts are gathered from CC/36/2022 – Devinder Sandhu & Ors. Vs. M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Limited and Others.

 

3.         In brief, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint and emanating from the record are that the Complainants are members of the Opposite Party No.5 (Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Mohali). Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure C-1) with the Opposite Party No.5 for developing a Group Housing, Commercial Housing and Retail Project over the land measuring 218 Kanal 8 Marla in Village Kansal, District Mohali, which is adjacent to the boundary of Chandigarh. In part performance of the above said Joint Development Agreement and as per the term & conditions of the said Joint Development Agreement, Opposite Party No.3 purchased land measuring 4.09 acres i.e. 32 Kanal 14 Marla vide Sale Deed dated 27.04.2007 executed by the Defence Services Cooperative Society in favour of Opposite Party No.3 which was also confirmed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Another chunk of land measuring 5.80 acres i.e. 46 Kanal 9 Marla was purchased vide Sale Deed dated 25.06.2007 executed by the Defence Services Cooperative Society in favour of Opposite Party No.3 which was also confirmed by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The remaining land was to be transferred by the Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Mohali, as per Clause 4.1 of the Joint Development Agreement after paying the consideration money fully detailed in Clause 4.1 (ii) to (v) of the Joint Development Agreement. The Complainants in the month of October 2010 paid ₹35,00,000/- as earnest money for booking of two units of 4 BHK apartments measuring 2250 sq. ft. each for their family consisting of three sons in the proposed project @ of ₹6,500/- per sq. ft. along with car parking and club membership. The said payment was duly acknowledged by Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 31.10.2010 (Annexure C-2) being Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.6. In the meantime, a Public Interest Litigation came to be filed in respect of the aforesaid Project before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh bearing C.W.P. No. 20425 of 2010 – “Aalok Jagga Vs. UOI & Others”, which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court in favour of Opposite Party No.3 vide order dated 26.03.2012. Against the said order, an SLP (C) No.32659 of 2013 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, who remanded he matter concerning the project to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 22.04.2014. However, during interregnum, on demand raised, the Complainants again paid ₹35,00,000/- to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, which was duly acknowledged by Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 12.04.2014 (Annexure C-3). Eventually, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 12.04.2017 set-aside the permission dated 05.07.2013 granted for construction of the housing project in question which was granted to Opposite Party No.3 vide proceedings of the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon, District Mohali.  On coming to know that the matter again reached the Hon’ble Apex Court vide SLP (C) No. 21375-21376 of 2017 – “TATA Housing Vs. Aalok Jagga & Ors.”, the Complainants sought refund of the earnest money of ₹70,00,000/-, however vide letter dated 15.09.2019 (Annexure C-6), Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and 6 informed Complainant No.1 to bear with them till the case is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 dismissed the Appeal and as such sealed the fate of the project. Thereafter, the Complainants again wrote to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and 6 to refund the aforesaid amount, along with interest (Annexure C-8 to C-10), but were informed to wait for some more time awaiting the outcome of Review Petition No. 252 of 2020 in C.W.P. No. 18253 of 2009 pending in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, which according to the Complainants has no relevance with the start of the Project as the same pertains to other aspects. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants have preferred the instant Consumer Complaint.

 

4.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

5.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 contested the claim of the Complainants, on  numerous grounds, inter alia, that they do not fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the units in question were booked by them for speculative purposes. It has been pleaded that M/s Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.1) and M/s RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.6) are altogether two separate entities duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. The Complainant No.1 is the Vice President of the Society and his father Col. B.S. Sandhu is the President of the Society (Opposite Party No.5) and the said Society still owe an amount of ₹4,67,73,338/- to Opposite Party No.1 as per Clause 14 (iii) of the Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007 (Annexure C-1). The Complainants despite having knowledge about the ongoing litigation with regard to the Project deposited an amount of ₹70,00,000/- with RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd., thus, there was no privity of contract between the Complainants and answering Opposite Parties with regard to the alleged transaction. Moreover, the Complainants have concealed the factum of having received an amount of ₹50,00,000/- out of ₹70,00,000/- which they deposited with RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.         Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainants herein are not Consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, since they hold multiple units in the same project for reselling and earning profits thereto. There exists no privity of contract between the Complaints and answering Opposite Parties. The only role which was attributed to Opposite Party No.3 as per the Joint Development Agreement was the “Assignee of Development Works”. The proposal for the development was submitted to Opposite Party No.5 by Opposite Party No.1 and it was only due to the lack of expertise & financial capability of Opposite Party No.1 & 5 that said development work was assigned to Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant No.1 (Mr. Devinder Sandhu was Vice President of said Society i.e. Opposite Party No.5 and was Authorized Signatory on behalf of the Society for purpose of said Joint Development Agreement. The payments in respect of the apartments in question were made to Opposite Party No.6 who also issued the provisional allotment of the units in question to the Complainants and thus, any claim thereto cannot be raised against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. The Complainants never entered into any agreement with Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 and consequently, no assurances were ever made to them. As Civil Writ Petition “Aalok Jagga Vs. UOI & Others” was filed, the construction activities were restrained by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 20.01.2011, Opposite Party No.5 (The Defence Services Coop. House Building Society Ltd.) taking recourse to Clause 26(v) of the Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007, terminated the same by sending termination notice dated 31.10.2011 and thus there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of answering Opposite Parties, as the answering Opposite Parties duly contested the matter before Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. On these lines, the consumer complaint was sought to be contested.

 

7.         Opposite Party No.5 in its reply denied that the Complainants have paid an amount of ₹70,00,000/-for allotment of two units of 4 BHK apartments measuring 2250 sq. ft. each in the proposed project being developed by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 situated at Village Kansal, District Mohali at the rate of ₹6500/- sq. ft. along with car parking and club membership fee. It has been admitted that Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 have failed to start the project namely “TATA Camelot” and have also failed to construct the apartments inspite of the fact that answering Opposite Party has already performed its part of the Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007 by transferring the land of the members of the Society to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 as per the terms & conditions of the Joint Development Agreement aforesaid by virtue of two sale deeds executed by answering Opposite Party on 27.04.2007 and 25.06.2007 in favour of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.  However, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 have neither paid the third and fourth installment nor the flats as promised have been given to the Members of Opposite Party No.5 including the Complainants. It has been asserted that there is no possibility of the project to start as the fate of the project was sealed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 05.11.2019. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8.         Opposite Party No.6 filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that despite having full knowledge about the project being embroiled in litigation, the Complainants deposited the amount of ₹70,00,000/- with answering Opposite Party so as to gain handsome profits by having an apartment in the proposed project i.e. TATA Camelot, however, the same was got converted into a friendly loan after the Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside all the sanctions of the said project. Out of the aforesaid amount of ₹70,00,000/- a sum of ₹50,00,000/- was already refunded back to the Complainants. The receipts in respect of the aforesaid amount were issued by Sh. Sudhir Chadha as authorized signatory of M/s RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd i.e. answering Opposite Party No.6 alone. It has been asserted that since it was a friendly loan, none of the other Opposite Parties are privy to the said transaction between the Complainants on the one hand and answering Opposite Party on the other hand. It has been asserted that Complainant No.1 was the Vice President of the Society (Opposite Party No.5) and his father Col. B.S. Sandhu was the President of the Society and the said Society still owed an amount of ₹4,67,73,338/- to Opposite Party No.1 as per Clause 14 (iii) of the Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007. On these lines, the consumer complaint was sought to be defended.

 

9.         Separate rejoinders were filed by the complainants controverting all the averments in the written replies of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, 3 & 4 and Opposite Party No.6.

 

10.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

 

11.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written submissions advanced on behalf of the Complainants, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, 3 & 4 and Opposite Party No.6.

 

12.         The broad contours of the present proceedings have been outlined. After scanning of record, including written arguments, our findings are as under:-

 

13.         The facts, which unfolds before us indicates that Complainants are members of “The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.” (Opposite Party No.5) who as per the Joint Development Agreement (Annexure C-1) is the owner of the property. The said Joint Development Agreement was executed on behalf of Opposite Party No.5 through its President Col. G.S. Sidhu, Vice President, Sh. Devinder Sandhu (present Complainant) and Executive Member Sh. Sukhdev Singh. The Joint Development Agreement was executed between Opposite Party No.5 as owner/first part, Opposite Party No.1/second part and Opposite Party No.3 as third part. Further, Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 are collectively referred to as Developers.

 

14.         Admittedly, the Complainants deposited an amount of ₹70,00,000/- vide receipts dated 31.10.2010 and 12.04.2014 with Opposite Party No.2 who is the Managing Director of Opposite Parties No.1 & 6 for booking of two units  for themselves and their family in the project being developed by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and 6. Thus, no payment has ever been made to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.  It relevant to mention, as per Clause B of the Joint Development Agreement, the owner had represented that the property was within the purview of Nagar Panchayat, Naya Gaon as notified vide notification issued on 18.10.2006 and has further declared that no part of the total land of the property falls under the forest area under Punjab Land Reservation Act. In terms of clause (I) of the Joint Development Agreement, Opposite Party No.3 (THDC Limited) agreed to execute, implement and complete the project only on the basis of representations, warranties, stipulations and assurances given by the owner i.e. Opposite Party No.5 of which the Complainants are member and more particularly, Complainant No.1 is the Vice President. Viewed thus, it the Complainants have the knowledge of the aforesaid undertaking and bound by the same.     

 

15.         It has come on record that the Complainants are entitled to the flats/units in question on account of their being the members of Opposite Party No.5 Society (The Defence Services Coop. H.B. Society Ltd.). The right accrued to the Complainants, if any, is only on account of being the members of the said Society and further, due to the fact that the Opposite Party No.5 Society of which the Complainants are members, has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with Opposite Party No.1 & 3, whereby it (Opposite Party No.5) is the owner of the land and Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are the Developers, thus undertaken the project jointly. Thus, the Complainants are deriving their right only through the Society (Opposite Party No.5). However, they chose to file the present Complaint in the individual capacity even though they could have claimed their right, if any, only through the Society. 

 

16.         Here, it is worthwhile to add, an identical question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether a land owner, who enters into an agreement with a builder, for construction of an Apartment Building and for sharing of the constructed area, is a ‘consumer’ entitled to maintain a complaint against the builder as a service-provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? In that case, the land owner had agreement with builder termed as ‘collaboration agreement’ or ‘joint venture agreement’. However, land owner had absolutely no say in matter of development, construction or sale of flats. It was held that this is not ‘joint venture’. If there is no joint control, it is not a joint venture. Hence, land owner is ‘consumer’ within the meaning of ‘Consumer Protection Act’.  Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in the present case, there remains no doubt that it is only the Opposite Party No.5 (The Defence Services Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.) who could file the instant Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties if there has been any shortcoming, laxity, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Thus, this leads to an irresistible conclusion that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties as there is no agreement/ contract executed between the Complainant (as individual) and the Opposite Parties. 

 

17.         Pertinently, the project TATA Camelot as regards which the present Complaint has been filed, and qua which the Complainants are alleging unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties has been declared as impermissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 05.11.2019 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the project being within short distances from Wildlife Sanctuary cannot be permitted to come up and has quashed all the clearances obtained for the development of the project. Therefore, it is very much clear that non-development/stalling of the project cannot be attributed to the Opposite Parties by any stretch of imagination. 

 

18.         Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 raised an objection with regard to existence of Arbitration clause contained in the Joint Development Agreement. It may be stated here that this issue has already been dealt with by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case titled as “Aftab Singh  Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr.”, Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, wherein, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it has been held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018. Even the Review Petition (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder in Civil Appeal Nos.23512-23513 of 2017 against order dated 13.02.2018, was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.12.2018. As such, objection raised by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 in this regard stands rejected.

 

19.         Learned Counsel  for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 has raised another objection to the effect that the complainants booked the flats/units for investment purposes, it may be stated here that the objection raised is not supported by any documentary evidence and as such, the onus shifts to the Opposite Parties to establish that the complainants, in the present Complaint, have purchased the unit in question, in the manner explained above, to indulge in ‘purchase and sale of units/plots’ as was held by the Hon’ble National  Commission in “Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates”, I (2016) CPJ 31 but since they failed to discharge their  onus, hence we hold that the complainants are consumer as defined under the Act. Mere fact that the complainants are living in another house or that they have other properties in their name, is not a ground to claim that they booked the flats/units to earn profits. Objection taken in this regard as such stands rejected.

 

20.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 argued that there had been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part as they are protected by the Force Majeure clause. We find sufficient merit in this argument. Perusal of clause 8.21 of the Joint Development Agreement makes it evidently clear that handing over of the flats was subject to the event of Force Majeure clause. Force Majeure clause has been defined and detailed in Clause 26 of the Joint Development Agreement as per which it includes court orders, injunction, change of law, action, and/or order by statutory and/or government authority affecting the development of project. Thus, the stalling of the project on account of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be covered under the Force Majeure clause and cannot remotely be termed and considered as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. 

 

21.         The Complainants alleged that they had deposited an amount of ₹70,00,000/- vide receipts dated 31.10.2010 and 12.04.2014 with Opposite Party No.2 who is the Managing Director of Opposite Parties No.1 & 6 for booking of two units  for themselves and their family in the project being developed by Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 and 6. Perusal of the said receipts shows that the same was issued by Opposite Party No.2 on the letter head of RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd. (which company was later impleaded at Opposite Party No.6). However, Opposite Party No.6 maintained that the amount of ₹70,00,000/- which has been made the bone of contention by the Complainants in their Complaint, received by it from the Complainants, was merely a friendly loan, out of which ₹50,00,000/- had already been refunded back to them, which fact they have concealed while filing the Complaint. In this regard, reliance has been placed on e-mail dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure R-1) and 27.03.2019 (Annexure R-2). We have minutely scanned the said e-mails and observed that in the said e-mails, Opposite Party No.2 specifically wrote to Complainant No.1 that he (Opposite Party No.2) had already paid back ₹50,00,000/- out of ₹70,00,000/- to the Complainants. Even earlier thereto, vide e-mail dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure R-3), the said factual position was made clear by Opposite Party No.2 to Complainant No.1. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid discussion, would make one thing very much clear that Complainants ventured to deposit the amount with RMC Infra Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.6) and that too in a project which already got embroiled in litigation, as admittedly one of the payments made by them was after the decision dated 26.03.2012 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. In this backdrop, to our mind, the Complainants cannot be allowed to avail their remedy by using this Commission as a tool to recover their friendly loan from Opposite Party No.2, which even otherwise, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission is not empowered to grant.  

 

22.         As our discussion hereafter would unfold, it is pertinent to mention here that Complainant No.1 is the Vice President of the Society (Opposite Party No.5) and his father Col. B.S. Sidhu is the President of the Society, which entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 27.04.2007 by transferring the land of the members of the Society to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 as per the terms & conditions of the Joint Development Agreement ibid by virtue of two sale deeds executed by Opposite Party No.5 on 27.04.2007 and 25.06.2007 in favour of Opposite Party No.3 and 4. Interestingly, the factum of the Complainant No.1 being Vice President of the Opposite Party No.5 Society has nowhere been disclosed in the entire Complaint by the Complainants for the reasons best known to them. Interestingly, Complainant No.1 (Sh. Devinder Sandhu) was also authorized signatory on behalf of the Society for purpose of said Joint Development Agreement. We are of the considered opinion that a person who suppressed material facts from a Court/Commission, is not entitled to any relief. This was so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as “Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2013) 2 SCC 39”.   

 

23.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

 

24.         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complaint is without any merit and hence, it is dismissed as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

25.         Consumer Complaint No.54 of 2022 – “Col. B.S. Sandhu Vs. THDC Limited & Others” and Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2022 – “Dilraj Sandhu Vs. THDC Limited and Others” are also dismissed in terms of the examination and reasons contained hereinabove apropos Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 2022 (the lead case).

 

26.         Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.     

 

27.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the files of connected consumer Complaints aforesaid.

 

28.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

29.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

10^th August, 2023                                                             

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”