Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/224/2021

Deepa Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Palm Homes - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Galav adv

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	224/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	05.04.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	17.11.2023

 

 

 

 

Deepa Rani age 29 yrs w/o Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, R/o 1680, New Indra Colony, Manimajra.

...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Palm Homes, Partnership Firm through its Authorized Signatory, Sh.Sarjan Singh S/o late Mihan Singh, SCO No.31-32 Palm City, Haibatpur Road, Sector-5 Derabassi, SAS Nagar Mohali (Punjab).

2^nd Address

Ubber Buildtech Pvt. Ltd Corp.Off.236, 2^nd  Floor Tricity Through its MD Harjinder Singh Trade Tower (TTT) Zirakpur- Patiala Highway Zirakpur 140603, Punjab (as the property is now being taken by present Firm/Builder)

Mobile No.9592333444, web:www.ubber group.com

2. Sh. Sarjan Singh S/o It. Mihan Singh, H.No.134/4, Adarsh Nagar, Derabassi.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

              MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

PRESENT:-

          Sh.Arvind Galav, Counsel for the    complainant

            Sh.Parminder Singh, Counsel for the OPs

 

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

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that in order to have a house nearby Chandigarh, she booked an independent floor at Ground Floor Unit No.26, VIP Enclave, Palm Homes, Derabassi, Punjab, Mohali by paying 10% of total price of Rs.18.40 lakhs i.e. Rs.1,84,000/-  with the OPs. She also raised a bank loan of Rs.17.00 lakhs for purchasing the said unit. In all, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,12,000/- (i.e. Rs.1,84,000/- on 28.10.2017, Rs.7,19,000/- on 30.11.2017 and Rs.1,09,000/- on 15.02.2018) to the OPs. The Buyer’s Agreement dated 28.10.2017 was also entered between the parties and as per Article 4 of the said agreement, the possession of the unit was to be handed over on or before 18 months from the date of agreement i.e. 28.10.2017 and besides this, the builder was also entitled to 6 months reasonable extension in delivery of the possession of the unit in case of any default attributable to the purchaser.  It has been averred that since the OPs were lingering on the matter on one or the other pretext, therefore, the complainant sent e-mails dated 15.04.2020 and 07.05.2020 along with the attachments of the representation and letter dated 23.10.2000 for cancellation of the unit and refund of the deposited amount but the OPs did not pay any heed to her genuine requests. Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the OPs to refund the deposited amount along with interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon the OPs, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version taking preliminary objections inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law etc.  It has been admitted that the complainant had booked the unit in question and paid Rs.10,12,000/- out of the total sale price of Rs.18.40 lakhs. It has been stated that the complainant herself stopped making the payment to the OPs because of which the construction was delayed.   The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     The complainant has filed replication to the written reply of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterating her own.
4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.     We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.
6.     The perusal of the documentary evidence on record and the submissions of the parties reveal that the complainant booked the unit in question for a total sale consideration of Rs.18.40 lakhs and a buyer’s agreement dated 28.10.2017 (Annexure C-4) was entered between the parties as per which the possession of the unit in question was to be delivered within 18 months from the date of the agreement. The OPs have already received more than 50% of the total sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,12,000/- from the complainant. The OPs have failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the agreement despite receipt of the huge amount from the complainant and therefore, the complainant was right in cancelling the unit and seeking refund of the deposited amount with interest as the allottee cannot be made to wait for a indefinite period for the delivery of the possession. The OPs have not been able to place on record any documentary evidence that the construction on the site is complete in all respects.
7.      Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Sujay Bharatiya & Anr. Vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.1814 of 2017 decided on 05.07.2018, held that non delivery of possession of plots/units in a developed project by the promised date is a material violation on the part of the builder and in those cases, allottees are well within their rights to seek refund of the amount paid. The above view is further supported by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Govindan Raghavan, Civil Appeal No.12238 of 2018, decided on 02.04.2019 and also in Fortune Infrastructure Vs. Trevor D’ Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442.
8.     The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:- 

    “It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

9.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved that the OPs have not refunded the deposited amounts to the complainant despite repeated requests, which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice by the OPs. Hence, the OPs are liable to refund the deposited amounts to the complainant along with the interest.
10.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.  Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OPs to refund the deposited amounts of Rs.10,12,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the respective dates of its deposits till the date of its actual payment to the complainant.
11.      The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly
13.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission.

17.11.2023                                

Sd/-

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

Cmg

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER