Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/20/2022

Anil Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sushma Buildtech Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Jindal Adv.

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/20/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	28/02/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	13/07/2022

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Anil Sethi S/o Sh. S.P. Sethi

2.     Ms. Reeta Sethi W/o Sh. Anil Sethi

Both resident of House No.D-304, Tower-D, Sushma Crescent, Village Gazhipur, Tehsil Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1.     Sushma Buildtech Limited, through its Director/ Chairman, Address: Unit No.B-107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1^st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

2.     Sh. Parteek Mittal, Director, Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No.B-107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1^st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

3.     Sh. Bharat Mittal, Director, Sushma Buildtech Limited, Unit No.B-107, Business Complex Elante Mall, 1^st Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

…… Respondents

 

4.     Dhruva Sondhi W/o Sh. Saurabh Sethi, Resident of House No. 605, Sector 18, Chandigarh – 160018.

 

…… Proforma Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA      MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the Appellants
		Sh. Vishal Singal, Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 3.
		Respondent No.4 ex-parte vide order dated 19.4.2022.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.02.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/703/2020, in the following terms:-

“7]  From the above, we are of the view that the Complainants have sufficiently been compensated for the delayed possession by the OPs and further, the present Complaint is barred by limitation as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as well as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

8]   In view of above, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint, being devoid of any merit as well as being barred by limitation, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.”

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellants/Complainants that being allured by the representations made by the Respondents/Opposite Parties, the Appellants/ complainants booked a 3 BHK flat in the project of the Respondents/Opposite Parties and they were allotted D-304 unit vide allotment letter dated 26.07.2016 for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,28,293/- including all the taxes.  The Appellants/ complainants paid a sum of Rs.50,50,000/- to the Respondent/ Opposite Parties in the year 2016 as depicted in para 3 of the complaint with a view that the possession was to be delivered on time within the span of 10 months from the date of entering the agreement.  It was averred that the Appellants/complainants with a hope to get the possession of the unit, shifted on rented accommodation as the construction of the flat with basic structure was already there so there was reasonable belief that the same was to be delivered within 10 months.  The committed period of possession expired on 25.05.2017 and as per the agreement, the Respondents/Opposite Parties may take another 6 months as grace period and even if the same is taken into account, the last date of possession comes to 25.11.2017. However, the possession was offered on 27.06.2018 and the deficiencies were pointed out on 11.07.2018, but nothing was done and finally, the possession was handed over on 08.08.2018 vide letter Annexure C-9. The conveyance deed (Annexure C-10) was executed on 07.07.2020.  It was submitted that the Respondents/Opposite Parties failed to comply with the stipulated time as agreed and as such, they suffered on account of non-fulfilling the commitments and they had to bear the rent @ Rs.11000/- per month  on account of the failure of the Respondents/ Opposite Parties to deliver the possession. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, the Respondents/Opposite Parties while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that there was no definitive agreement stating that the possession would definitely be delivered within 16 months including a grace period of 6 months from the date of execution of the unit buyer’s agreement.  However, the possession of the unit was subject to force majeure conditions.  It was asserted that as per Clause 15.d of the terms & conditions of the Buyer’s Agreement, the Appellants/complainants can only claim compensation @Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super built up area per month for the entire period of such delay. It was further pleaded that the Respondents/ Opposite Parties accordingly remitted an amount of Rs.64,200/- as per the agreed terms and conditions of the agreement. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellant/ Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

4.      The Respondent No.4 was duly served but he did not appear, as such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.04.2022.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Appellants/ Complainants as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Complainants.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, along with the written arguments advanced, with utmost care.

 

8.      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. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      On going through the records of the Ld. Lower Commission, it is observed that the Respondents have already paid an amount of Rs.64,200/- to the Appellants in July/August, 2018 towards delayed possession penalty. It is also clear that the Appellants took the possession of the Unit on 08.08.2018 and got the Conveyance Deed of the Unit executed in their favour, but filed the Consumer Complaint seeking compensation for delayed period of possession only on 24.12.2020 i.e. after a period of more than 2 years from the date of taking possession i.e. 08.08.2018 and receiving the amount for delayed possession. In this backdrop, to our mind, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held that the Complainants (Appellants herein) had been adequately compensated for the delay in possession and further, there was delay in filing the Consumer Complaint which exceeded the prescribed period of limitation as provided under the Act. It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

11.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we do not see any strain of perversity discernible from the order which may occasion to vitiate the same. We are, therefore, dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed. The order of Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

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

 

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

Pronounced

13^th July, 2022                                

Sd/-

          (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”