Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/306/2017

M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure Builder & Promoters - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijay Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Harsh Nagra, Adv.

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	306 of 2017
Date of Institution	12.12.2017
Date of Decision	25.01.2018

 

M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure, Builder & Promoter 1329, Silvertone Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh, through its partners

1. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Urick Chand, 2013/30, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o H.No.71, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.
3. Sh. Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Shemsher Singh, 1329, Silvertone Society, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

         ....Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

1. Vijay Kumar S/o Harbans Lal,
2. Surjeet Kumar S/o Harbans Lal,

Both residents of H.No.2008, Near Saini Gurdwara, Village Burail, UT, Chandigarh.

                              ....Respondents/Complainants

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Harsh Nagra, Advocate for the appellant.

                  Respondents/Complainants in person.

                  

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.10.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

“10]      Keeping into consideration the above peculiar facts & circumstance of the present case, the complaint is hereby allowed with directions to the Opposite Party as under:-

1. To pay a lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant for harassment and loss suffered by him due to deficient act of the OP;
2. To handover the possession of the flat in question to the complainant and shall ensure uninterrupted all basic amenities;
3. To refund Rs.7500/- i.e. fee paid to the Local Commissioner by the complainant.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party shall also have to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.1.00 lakh, apart from the above relief.” 

 

2.    The facts in brief, are that, the complainants/respondents are brothers who opted to purchase Flat No.21, Ground Floor at Saravhitkari Swami Apartments, Village Sante Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali from Opposite Parties, for their residential purpose for an amount of Rs.12.00 lacs and accordingly, executed an Agreement to Sell dated 24.03.2011 and paid an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, at the time of said agreement (Annexures C-1 & C-1/A).  It was stated that on 07.06.2011,  complainants paid an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the Opposite Parties vide receipt Annexure C-2 and the remaining amount of Rs.9.00 lacs was paid through Demand Draft dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure C-3) and in this way, total price of the flat i.e. Rs.12.00 lacs stood paid to the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties got registered the sale deed in favour of the complainants on 22.07.2011, but failed to deliver the physical possession of the Unit despite making several requests, whereas as per Clause 3 of the terms & conditions of the Agreement, the possession of the dwelling unit was to be delivered on or before 31.12.2011. It was further stated that the complainants came to know that the Opposite Parties neither applied nor obtained the Occupation Certificate in respect of the project upto 27.05.2016, as per certificate issued by Nagar Council, Kharar (Annexure C-4).  It was further stated that in the absence of possession of dwelling unit, the complainants are residing in a rented accommodation and suffering harassment, as well as financial loss. It was further stated that a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties on 29.06.2016 (Annexure C-5/A), but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and stated that the Agreement to Sell which is Annexure C-1, was executed by Mr. Surinder Singh, alleged partner of M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure Builders and Promoters and not by answering Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  It was further stated that the sale of the flat, in question, is effected by M/s Swami Empires Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that answering Opposite Parties were engaged in the construction of flats and have completed the construction of the flats including the flat of the complainants, except some finishing touch, which is remaining in some flats.  It was further stated that even more than 30 families are living in the flats, in question, and the complainants never approached the answering Opposite Parties for the possession of the flat, which was already constructed and the complainants could take possession of the same.  It was further submitted that all the permissions were to be obtained by the seller, not by the answering Opposite Parties and the seller is M/s Swami Empires Pvt. Ltd. and moreover, as per Clause No.4 of Annexure C-1, such permissions were required to be taken for execution and registration of sale deed of the flat, in question, has already taken place in favour of the complainants. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
4. The complainants filed replication, wherein they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
5. The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellants and respondents/complainants in person and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, and respondents/complainants in person and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. After going through the facts of the case, we find that the appellant M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure Builders & Promoters has executed an agreement with the respondents, for the sale of Flat No.21, Ground Floor, measuring 840 sq. ft. approximately, situated at Sarvhitkari Swami Apartment, Village Sante Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.  According to the partnership deed dated 09.04.2008,
    Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Sh. Manjeet Singh and Sh. Surinder Singh Rihal, are co-partners in M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure and are liable jointly and severally for allotment of flat and execution of all necessary documents regarding transfer of the same, in the name of respondents. As per the agreement dated 15.05.2008 between M/s Swami Empires Private Limited and M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure, the latter i.e. M/s Sarvhitkari Infrastructure Builders & Promoters, has to complete the construction of housing project and shops at Village Sante Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab. The complaint, as such, is maintainable according to the Forum, against the appellants. Since out of the total 114 flats and 10 shops, 79 flats and 6 shops were specifically appropriated to M/s Sarvhitakri Infrastructure, for allotment/sale etc., the respondents, in this case, paid Rs.12 lacs for the flat, in question, to the appellants. The appellants have miserably failed to properly construct/furnish or at least offer possession of the flat, even after a long gap of six years. The learned Forum had relied upon Local Commissioner, who had visited the said flat, in question, and had given a report that the said flat requires substantial work to be done and there is total lack of amenities and the flat requires immense renovation. This clearly shows that there was deficiency on the part of the appellants and the respondents are entitled for the reliefs granted by the Forum. Accordingly, the said appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants and respondents/complainants in person.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

 

Pronounced.

25.01.2018

                                               

                                                                                     

                                                                         Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                        Sd/-                                     

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                                   Sd/-                                          

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

 

GP

 

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.306 of 2017)

(Sarvhitkari Infrastructure Builders & Promoters Vs. Vijay Kumar & anr.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Harsh Nagra, Advocate for the appellants.

Respondents/Complainants in person.

 

Dated the 25^th day of January, 2018

 

ORDER

              Service is complete.

              Respondents/complainants have put in appearance in person.

              Arguments heard.

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties, has been dismissed, with no order as to costs and the order passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.

 

 

 

Sd/-                       Sd/-                                 Sd/-

                             

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

 

 

Gp