Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/890/2022

MOHAMMAD ISLAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHMA BUILDTECH LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

KARAMJEET SINGH

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/890/2022
Date of Institution	:	31/10/2022
Date of Decision	:	16/12/2024

 

Mohammad Islam of Jeeta son of Jeeta Khan Indian Inhabitant resident of House No. 1633, Sector 45, Burail, Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

 

1 Sushma Buildtech Limited, SCO No. 172-173, 1ST Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Partner/ Managing Director.

2 Bharat Mittal son of Sh. Binder Pal Mittal, Authorized Signatory of Sushma Buildtech Limited, SCO No. 172-173, 1St Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3 Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No. 56, 2nd floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh and registered office at One Forbes, Dr. V. B, Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Karamjit Singh, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for OPs No.1&2
	:	Sh. Shrey Goel, Advocate for OP No.3 (thr. VC)

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant on 14.2.2012 booked a flat in the project of OPs No. 1and 2 and Buyer Agreement  dated 14.2.2012 was executed between the parties for unit No.D-904 and as per agreement the possession of the flat was to be handed over within 42 months from the date of booking plus six months grace period.  The complainant availed loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from OP No.3 and paid the payment without any default as per agreement but the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the unit in question within stipulated period. The complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.46,36,194/- to the OPs towards the sale consideration of the unit in question  out of the total sale consideration of Rs.50,90,930/-. It is alleged that despite repeated requests the OPs did not hand over the possession of the unit in question rather vide letter dated 8.2.2019 cancelled the allotment of the unit in question. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  the complainant adopted a construction linked payment plan and as per payment  schedule of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. As per clause 14(d) of the Agreement the possession of the unit in question was to be delivered within a time period of 48 months from the date of execution of Agreement subject to force majeure conditions and timely payments of installments as contained in the said agreement. However, the complainant remained a willful defaulter towards timely payment of the unit in question despite issuance of various demand letters, consequently the allotment of the unit in question  was terminated on 8.1.2019.  Thereafter also the complainant despite repeated reminders failed to make the payments in time. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 23.1.2019 for cancellation of unit in question  was issued. Finally vide letter dated 27.11.2019 the complainant  was intimated regarding cancellation of the unit in question and  hence an amount of Rs.11,74,404/- was forfeited. Denying any deficiency on their part all other allegations made in the complaint have been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3 in its reply  stated that the  complaint is not maintainable against it as no allegation of deficiency in service has been leveled against the answering OP by the complainant in the complaint. Thus, the complaint being not maintainable against the answering OP is liable to be dismissed qua it.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is an admitted fact as well as evident from Annexure C-7  the intimation of cancellation letter  that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.46,36,194/- to the OPs No.1&2  towards the sale consideration of  the unit in question out of the basic sale price of Rs.50,90,930/-. However, as per OPs No.1&2 since the complainant did not respond to their demand letters continuously and on this very inactive approach of the complainant  the allotment of the unit in question was cancelled on 8.2.2019  and finally the complainant was intimated regarding cancellation on 27.11.2019 vide Annexure R-9.
7. A perusal of Annexure R-9 dated 27.11.2019 issued by OPs No.1&2 reveals that they had forfeited the amount of Rs.11,74,404/- due to default of payment by the complainant towards the unit in question.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the  opinion that  if due to some personal reasons the complainant could not make the payments even then he cannot be  penalized twice as the OPs No.1&2 firstly cancelled the allotted unit in question thereafter forfeited his hard earned money also. As per the said letter the balance refundable amount is Rs.34,61,790/- after forfeiting the amount of Rs.11,74,404/-. During the arguments it was revealed that out of Rs.34,61,790/-  the OPs No.1&2 have paid Rs.27,43,640/-  to the OPNo.3  towards the loan settlement raised by the complainant and after subtracting the said amount out of Rs. Rs.34,61,790/-  still an amount of Rs.7,18,150/- left to be paid by the OPs No.1&2 apart from forfeited amount of Rs.11,74,404/-.
9. It is evident from record that  out of the total sale consideration of Rs.50,90,930/-  the complainant had paid Rs.46,36,194/- meaning thereby the complainant had paid more than 90% amount to the OPs No.1&2 but despite of that the OPs No.1&2 never offer possession of the unit in question to the complainant rather cancelled the allotment of the same. The said act of the OPs No.1&2 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, they are liable to refund Rs.18,92,554/-(Rs.7,18,150/- + 11,74,404/-) to the complainant which they are retaining without any fault of the complainant.  Due to this very arrogance of OPs No. 1 and 2, the complainant was forced to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation.  
10. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.1&2 are directed as under:-

1. to refund ₹18,92,554/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of the cancellation of the booking of flat in question.
2. to pay ₹50,000/- to the complainant/s as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
12. Complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
16/12/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member