Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/159/2024

M/S PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOVIA R.J. SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

I.P. SINGH

28 Nov 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/159/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	22/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	28/11/2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi, having its Branch/Site Office, Parkwood Glade at Village Sante Majra, Kharar – Landran Road, Sector 116, Greater Mohali, through its Authorized Officer – Sh. Suraj Kumar.

 

2.     Harpreet Singh, Director, M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019.

 

3.     Dakshdeep Singh, Managing Director, M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, having its Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi.

….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.     Sovia R.J. Singh, w/o Ravinderjit Singh, Chitkara Educational Trust, 162-163, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.  

 

2.     Ravinderjit Singh s/o Rajinder Singh, Flat No. N-001, Parkwood Glade, Sector 116, Kharar – Landra Road, Mohali.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
		Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.

 

[2]

 

Appeal No.	:	A/77/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	19/2/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	28/11/2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Sovia R.J. Singh, w/o Ravinderjit Singh, Chitkara Educational Trust, 162-163, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 

 

2.     Ravinderjit Singh s/o Rajinder Singh, Flat No. N-001, Parkwood Glade, Sector 116, Kharar – Landra Road, Mohali.

….Appellants

 

Versus

 

1.     Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019, through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

 

2.     Harpreet Singh, Managing Director, Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019.

 

3.     Dakshdeep Singh, Director, Parkwood Developers Pvt. Limited, Regd. Office at 1101, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY   PRESIDING MEMBER

                PREETINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
		Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.         This order shall dispose of above captioned cases i.e. A/159/2024 filed by the Opposite Parties (M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr.) and A/77/2024 filed by the Complainant (Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), against the order dated 15.01.2024, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. District Commission’), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/250/2021, filed by the Complainants (Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr.), against Opposite Parties (M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), by passing the following order: -

“9]      In the light of above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been proved.  Therefore, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs.  Accordingly, the present complaint is Partly Allowed against the OPs with directions as under:-

a)       To pay compensation for delayed possession of unit to the complainants @Rs.5/- per sq. ft., per month for the period of delay in delivering the possession of the Unit i.e. for the period from 30.12.2011 to 31.08.2012;

b)       To pay to the complainants a lumpsum an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation as well as litigation expenses.

          The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

 

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the same can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the present cases, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

4.         Along with A/159/2024, the Appellants have moved misc. application bearing no. MA/394/2024 for condoning the delay of 43 days (as per office 39 days) in filing the Appeal. The cause shown is sufficient. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time. Accordingly, misc. application bearing no. MA/394/2024 stands disposed of.

 

5.         Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainants that they applied for allotment of flat in the project of the Opposite Parties namely “Parkwood Glade”, situated at Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab. The basic price of the flat was ₹36.85 lakhs which were deposited by the complainants from time to time as demanded by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Flat Buyers Agreement was executed on 21.03.2011 and as per the agreement, the Opposite Parties have to develop and deliver the flat complete in all respects on or before 30.09.2011 with a further grace period of 90 days and the last date for handing over the possession of the flat, complete in all respects, including the grace period was 30.12.2011.  The Opposite Parties delivered the possession of the flat on 13.03.2012.   They were shocked to receive the letter dated 13.03.2012 whereby the Opposite Parties demanded the amount of ₹1.43 lakhs on account of difference of the increased area from 1675 sq. ft. to 1740 sq. ft. i.e. 65 sq. ft.  which was opposed by the complainants by writing a letter dated 20.03.2012/ 21.03.2012 stating therein that the structure of the Tower-N was complete at time of booking and the interior work was pending and the question of increase in super area does not arise at all, once the structure of the flat was complete and the super area was mentioned in all the relevant documents executed between the parties. The complainants also demanded the delayed compensation from the Opposite Parties as per the agreement and also requested for issuance of revised statement of account. Instead of sending the revised statement of account, the Opposite Parties sent reminder dated 27.06.2012 requiring the Complainants to take possession of the flat by clearing the dues and further demanded the interest. Left with no other alternative, the complainants paid the final balance of ₹3,93,759/- to the Opposite Parties on 31.07.2012 against receipt dated 03.08.2012. Despite receipt of the final payment, the Opposite Parties handed over the actual physical possession of the flat on 19.09.2012 which clearly showed that the flat was not ready till 18.09.2012 and as such they were entitled for compensation w.e.f. 30.12.2011 till 18.09.2012. It was averred that the Complainants paid the maintenance charges for few months to the Opposite Parties, but on seeing no maintenance work being carried out despite repeated requests, they stopped paying the same w.e.f. 30.09.2015 to 28.02.2021 and as such the Opposite Parties sent a letter dated 03.03.2021 requiring them to pay ₹3,82,468.77 as maintenance charges, along with interest. It was further averred that due to non-providing the facilities as agreed at the time of executing the agreement, the Opposite Parties stated that they would not demand the earlier disputed maintenance charges w.e.f. 2015, but they demanded the maintenance charges w.e.f. 2020 which the complainants deposited on 15.06.2020, but they were surprised to note that the amount of ₹9194/- was adjusted by the Opposite Parties towards the disputed maintenance amount for the year 2015. It was further averred that the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the proper parking facilities as there was only single way for the parking which was used for both entry as well as exist.  Further, the Opposite Parties have failed to get rectified the problem of seepage in their flat, despite repeated requests and finding no other alternative, they got the same rectified from Berger Company by paying ₹2,14,551/-. It was further averred that the Opposite Parties failed to construct the swimming pool even till today as the same was promised by them at the time of booking of the flat; there was no development and maintenance the site and there were no basic amenities as promised. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

6.         The Opposite Parties though appeared through their counsel, but failed to file written version despite availing opportunities, therefore, their defence was ordered to be struck off by the Ld. District Commission vide order dated 16.03.2023.

 

7.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission partly allowed the Consumer Complaint and issued directions to the Opposite Parties (M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) as noticed in the opening Para of this order.  

 

8.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, Appeal No. 159 of 2024 has been filed by the Opposite Parties (M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr.) and Appeal No. 77 of 2024 has been filed by the Complainants (Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.).

 

9.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

10.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

11.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion that Appeal No.159 of 2024 titled “M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr.” deserves to be dismissed, while Appeal No.77 of 2024 titled as “Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”) is liable to be partly accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

12.         It is the case of the Appellants/Opposite Parties that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the impugned order was passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case and without appreciating the correct legal position, which resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and thus deserves to be set aside. The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.

 

13.         Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties vehemently argued that the Ld. District Commission has ignored the fact that the Complaint in question has been filed after a period of 10 years and there was no justification also in entertaining a time barred claim and even otherwise also, no compensation of the alleged delay could be granted of the period from 30.12.2011 to 31.08.2012.

 

14.         The main thread which runs through the present controversy is whether there was delay in delivering the possession of the unit and if yes, at what rate the Complainants are entitled to be compensated for the said delayed possession by the Opposite Parties. 

 

15.         Admittedly, per clause 19(a) & 20(b) of the Flat Buyers Agreement dated 21.03.2011, the Opposite Parties were to deliver the possession of the Flat/Unit in question by 30.09.2011 and by adding the grace period of 90 days, the possession was to be delivered by 30.12.2011. It is also apparent therefrom that in case of late delivery of possession, the Complainants would be entitled to get compensation @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period. 

 

16.         Record showed, the possession of the Flat/Unit in question was offered & delivered to the complainants on 01.09.2012; whereas, as discussed ibid, the same was to be delivered upto 30.12.2011. In this backdrop, the complainants were entitled to get compensation @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month for the delayed period i.e. 30.12.2011 to 31.08.2012 in getting possession of the unit. To this effect, the Ld. District Commission has recorded a cogent finding after due appreciation of the material available on record.

 

17.         However, from conjoint reading of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the argument raised by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the Ld. District Commission grossly erred in entertaining a time barred claim. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3343 of 2020 titled as “Debashis Sinha & Others Vs. M/s R.N.R. enterprise Rep. by its Proprietor/ Chairman, Kolkata & Ors.”, has observed that flat-owners, who are often forced by the circumstances to take possession of apartments even if the amenities promised by the builder are not provided, do not forfeit their right to claim such services from the builder. Further, in Neo Build Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sushil Ranjan Roy & Anr., (2024) CPJ 127 (NC), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that a consumer can raise dispute either in respect of any deficiency a per original agreement or any deficiency detected post purchase. However, the judgments relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties in cases titled Champaben Atmaram Thakron Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr., 2015 (1) CPJ 131; Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr., 2009 (9) JT 89; State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabina Chakraborty & Ors., 2015 (1) SLR 12; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., 2020(3) RCR (Civil) 256 being distinguishable on facts are of no help to the Opposite Parties. 

 

18.         The plea of the complainants as regards wrong charging of amount towards excess area by the Opposite Parties; waiver/exemption of maintenance charges has duly been considered by the Ld. District Commission in the light of the documentary evidence available on record and eventfully rejected the same by recording a categorical finding in Para No.8 and 9 of the order impugned before us.  To our mind, the judicious application of the Ld. District Commission to partly allow the consumer complaint appears to be well merited. No legal infirmity is thus seen with the impugned decision. Accordingly, the appeal of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties (M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr.) deserves to be dismissed. No case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

19.         Now, adverting to Appeal No. 77 of 2024 filed by the Complainants titled as Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. In this appeal, the prayer has been made by the Complainants for modification of the order dated 15.01.2024 and enhancement of the compensation etc. awarded by the Ld. District Commission.

 

20.         It is well settled that the word ‘Compensation’ is of very vide connotation and once the Court is satisfied that the complainant has suffered harassment or mental agony and is entitled to compensation, it is obliged to adequately compensate him for the actual loss or expected loss, which would extend to compensation for the physical, mental or emotional sufferings. On the question of determination of compensation for the loss or injury suffered by a consumer on account of deficiency in service, the following observations by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 668 are also apposite:-
    1.  

“While quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

 

In Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum extends to the award of compensation to alleviate the harassment and agony to a consumer. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while explaining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the adjudicatory fora under the Consumer Protection Act observed that “…The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done”. Under these circumstances, the complainants are entitled to get, special, exemplary and aggravated damages.So on account of inconvenience, physical and mental harassment suffered by the Complainants at the hands of the Opposite Parties, ₹1,00,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded as compensation and cost of the proceeding. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, granting meagre compensation needs modification. 

 

21.         In view of above, Appeal No. 77 of 2024 filed by the Complainants titled as Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. stands partly accepted. The orders of the Ld. District Commission are modified to the aforesaid extent. The other part of the order with regard to compensation for delayed possession of the unit to the Complainants @ ₹5/- pr sq. ft. is affirmed. The order be complied with by Opposite Parties, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay penal interest in the manner as directed by the Ld. District Commission.

 

22.         No other point was urged by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

23.         The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

 

24.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of Appeal No. 77 of 2024 - Sovia R.J. Singh & Anr. Vs. Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

 

25.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

26.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

28^th November, 2024                                                                           

                                         Sd/-                         

                                                                (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”