Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
This order will dispose of above mentioned two (2) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants against the same opposite parties, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') as the facts and the questions of law involved in both the complaints are the same and all the complaints pertains to the dispute of allotment of plot in the same Scheme of the opposite parties. However, for the purpose of detailed facts, we are taking up Consumer Complaint No.157 of 2019.
Consumer Complaint No.157 of 2019
2. The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') seeking following directions to the opposite parties:
a. to handover the physical possession of above said plot complete in all respect with all amenities within two months;
b. to pay interest at the rate of 13% on the deposited amount from the respective dates of deposits;
c. to start making the monthly delay payments for the period for which the plot is not offered for possession with the due amenities.
d. to refund the entire amount along with interet at the rate of 13% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund;
e. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment;
f. to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that as the complainant is not having any house in the Tricity, she enrolled herself as a member with opposite party No.5 in the year 2006 and paid a sum of Rs.5110/- vide receipt No.2745 as Membership Fee. After becoming a Member, the complainant also paid an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- towards the cost of land for a 10 Marla plot at the rate of 10,500/- per sq. yard to opposite party No.5. On 03.04.2007, a Certificate of Registration/Membership was issued to the complainant by opposite party No.5, wherein she was given Membership No.775. Thereafter, the complainant further received a Letter of Intent by opposite party No.5 intimating therein that society has entered into an agreement with opposite party No.1 to develop land as per PUDA/GMADA norms and to allot the developed residential plots to the Members in Sector -86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The complainant to make the timely payments obtained a loan from her friends and relatives and used all her life long savings. The complainant received a letter to deposit EDC charges from December 2013 onwards. The complainant further deposited Rs.2,00,000/- against receipt No.5070, Rs.1,80,000/- against receipt No.3523, Rs.1,75,000/- against receipt No.3524, Rs.20,000/- against receipt No.3525. It has been further averred that despite depositing of total cost of the plot and EDC neither allotment letter nor physical possession was given to the complainant. When the complainant herself came to the office of the opposite parties to enquire about the status of possession she was shocked to know that there was no development on the site. The opposite party No.1 issued an Allotment Letter dated 04.03.2016 to the complainant stating therein that she has been provisionally allotted plot No.403-A, measuring 10 Marla, in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. She was further assured that physical possession of the plot would be handed over to the complainant within 3 to 4 months. Vide another letter dated 14.10.2016, the complainant was informed that the provisionally allotted plot was not fully cleared in all respects and opposite party No.1 is trying its best to complete all the related formalities/sanctions/approvals from the Government. Another letter dated 04.05.2017 was issued to the complainant wherein it has been stated that opposite party No.1 is responsible to allot the plot with a clearance in all respects. In June, 2017, the complainant visited the site where the plot was carved out but there was no progress in the project. The complainant is of 65 years old and suffering from various health issues including high blood pressure. The opposite party No.1 intentionally did not mention the date of delivery of physical possession of the plot in the letter dated 04.03.2016 issued by the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 has not handed over the possession to the complainant even after the lapse of more than 12 years. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 5 appeared through their counsel, whereas opposite parties No.3 & 4 had not appeared despite their service and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.01.2019.
5. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has concealed the true facts. There is no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is the Member of the society and paid land cost of her share of 10M plot to the Society. As per terms of the allotment letter, PLC charges @10% additional amount on corner plot and 5% on park facing will be extra considering the cost of the land at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per sq. yard. It has been mentioned that Akash Co-op. House Building Society-opposite party No.5 has given the allotted plot. The Society is having its separate identity. Opposite party No.1 needed the amount/funds for development of society from the society and its Members. The complainant is an investor and due to recession in the property business she does not want to continue to go with purchased property in the sector of answering opposite parties. As per Clause 9 of the Allotment Letter dated 04.03.2016, it is mentioned that no separate notice will be sent for the pending amount to the complainant. The complainant has not deposited the remaining amount with the opposite parties. The development of the sector is on full swing. The answering opposite parties developed its sector as per the norms of GMADA and that is why GMADA has approved the layout plan of the opposite parties. The complainant has falsely implicated just to harass the answering opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Opposite party No.5 filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. There is no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against opposite party No.5. The complaint filed by the complainant is on the basis of misrepresentation, non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper party by the complainant to harass the answering opposite party No.5. The complainant is the Member of The Akash Cooperative Housing Building Society. This Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that land of Akash Co-operative House Building Society is transferred to Preet Land for the development and allotment of the plots and in case land is short for allotment of plot to the Members of the Society, then Preet Land will purchase the land and after development of the whole sector will give the plots to the Members of the Society. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.5. Rest all the averments as averred by the complainant in his complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Evidence of the Parties
7. To prove her claim, the complainant has filed her affidavit dated 10.02.2019 along with documents as copy of application dated 11.03.1999 as Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 19.12.2006 as Ex.C-2, copy of receipt dated 19.12.2006, copy of certificate dated 03.04.2007 as Ex.C-4, copy of receipt dated 09.04.2012 as Ex.C-5, copy of receipt dated 19.04.2014 as Ex.C-6, copy of receipt dated 19.04.2014 as Ex.C-7, copy of receipt dated 19.04.2014 as Ex.C-8, copy of Allotment Letter dated 04.03.2016 as Ex.C-9, copy of letter dated 14.10.2016 as Ex.C-10, copy of letter dated 03.05.2017 as Ex.C-11, copy of postal receipt dated 04.05.2017 as Ex.C-12, copy of letter dated 15.05.2017 as Ex.C-13, copy of order dated 19.12.2018 as Ex.C-14.
8. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed the affidavit of Sh.C.S.Saini, authorized person of M/s Preet Land Promoters and Developer Pvt.Ltd, dated 06.06.2019. Copy of Resolution dated 29.08.2018 as Ex.OP-1. Copy of CLU dated 28.12.2006, copy of Notification dated 14.10.2009 as Ex.OP-3, copy of Approval of Revised Layout Plan of M/s Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. dated 18.06.2014 as Ex.OP-4, copy of Revised NOC letter dated 23.09.2016 as Ex.OP-5, copy of Letter dated 09.12.2013 as Ex.OP-6, copy of letter dated 22.08.2014 as Ex.OP-7.
9. Opposite party No.3 filed the affidavit of Sh.C.S.Saini, Authorized person, Akash Cooperative House Building Society, dated 06.06.2019 along with document, copy of Resolution dated 03.09.2018 as Ex.OP-5/1.
Contention of the Parties
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
11. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the complainant became Member of opposite party No.5 in the year 2006 by paying Rs.5,110/-. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- towards cost of land of 10 Marla plot. Thereafter, on 03.04.2017, a Certificate of Registration was issued to the complainant by opposite party No.5 and gave Membership No.775. Further, the opposite party No.5 entered into an agreement with opposite party No.1 and intimation to this effect was given to the complainant. The complainant paid the substantial amount of the plot to the opposite parties including the EDC charges. But neither allotment letter nor physical possession was offered to the complainant. The complainant visited the site and was shocked to see that there was no development. The opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 04.03.2016 provisionally allotted Plot No.403-A, measuring 10 Marla, in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The opposite parties are not having any requisite permissions / approvals of the competent authorities. As there is no progress at the site, therefore, it cannot be said the complainant can get his plot with all amenities in near future. The complainant is an old lady who is suffering from various health problems. After a lapse of more than 12 years, there is nothing in the hands of the complainant after spending a huge amount from her hard earned money. Finally, prayed to allow the complaint as per reliefs prayed above.
12. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 argued that the complainant is an investor and due to recession in the property business she does not want to continue to go with the purchased property in the sector of answering opposite parties. The complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued that complainant is the Member of the Society and paid land cost of her plot to the Society, who allotted the plot to the complainant. Opposite parties No.5 is a separate entity and does its administrative and financial functions from its separate office. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have no concern with opposite party No.5. It is argued that a Society cannot develop a project for meeting the expenses if the Society Members will not pay their pending dues on time to the Society. The opposite parties developed its sector as per the norms of GMADA and that is why GMADA has approved the layout plan of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13. Learned counsel for opposite party No.5 argued that there is no cause of action arose to the complainant. This Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present complaint. It has been argued that the land of Akash Co-operative House Building Society is transferred to Preet Land for the development and allotment of the plots and in case land is short for allotment of plot to the Members of the Society, then Preet Land will purchase the land and after development of the whole sector will deliver the plots to the Members of the Society. There is no merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the same against opposite party No.5.
Consideration of the Contentions
14. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent's case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. At the sake of repetition, it is relevant to mention that in the present case, opposite parties No.3&4 failed to file reply to the complaint. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted. In view of this, all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by opposite parties No.3 & 4 and an adverse inference is to be drawn against it. It is, therefore, held that the opposite parties No.3 & 4 is deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
16. Firstly, the objection raised by opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant is an investor and does fall within the definition of 'Consumer'. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to prove that the complainant is an investor or is indulging in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose and simple assertion in this regard in the reply of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is not sufficient to prove this fact. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA STATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already discussed above, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant indulged in sale/purchase of properties or that he purchased the unit, in question, for further sale or for earning profits or for investment purposes. Accordingly, the above said objection/contention of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is rejected and the complainant is held to be 'consumer', under the Act.
17. Another objection raised by the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by limitation. Admittedly the complainant made the substantial amount towards the price of the plot, in question, to the opposite parties and the possession of the same has not been delivered to him till date despite repeated requests. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered. Hon'ble National Commission in Navin Sharma (Dr. ) & others v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.,2016 2 CalLT 457 has held that unless or until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In para 8 of the said judgment it has been observed by the Hon'ble National Commission as under:-
"8. The first submission made by the counsel for the opposite party was that the case is barred by time. This argument was raised merely for the sake of cavil. It is now well settled that unless or until the complainants get the possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. This view finds support from this authority reported in "Raghava Estates Ltd. v. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association" Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012."
18. Now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the complainant vide application, Ex.C-1 became Member of opposite party No.5 and paid Rs.5,110/- vide Ex.C-2 as Membership fee. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- on 19.12.2006, vide Ex.C-3 on account of land cost. Thereafter, a Certificate of Registration was issued in favour of the complainant on 03.04.2007, Ex.C-4, wherein the complainant was given share of 10 Marla Plot and issued Registration No.775. Against the total sale consideration, the complainant paid the substantial amount as per receipts Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8. The complainant was allotted a Plot No.403(A) proposed measuring 10 Marla approx. in Sector 86, Mohali vide Allotment Letter dated 04.03.2016, Ex.C-9. In the said Allotment Letter pending payment on account of Development Charges is shown as Rs.1,75,000/-, whereas Land Cost to be recovered as NIL. As per Clause (d) of the said Allotment Letter the land of The Akash Co-operative H/B Society Ltd. was transferred in the name of "Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd." The relevant clause is mentioned as under:-
"(d) The original land owned by the two societies, namely "The Akash Co-operative H/B Society Ltd." & "The Dastkar Co-operative H/B Society Ltd." was transferred in the name of "Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd, Sector 86", Mohali for the development of the area and allot residential plots to the members of the societies. Therefore, the allotment of plots to them will be made by "Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd." on behalf of The Akash & Dastkar Co-operative H/B Societies."
19. It is pertinent to note that this Allotment Letter was itself issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, which proves that the project has been taken over by opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.5. It is also important to note that both the parties received the payments from the complainant against the plot allotted to her. Further, opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 14.10.2016, Ex.C-10, stated that the provisionally allotted plot is not fully clear in all respects due to unavoidable technical reasons and circumstances beyond our control. Further in the said letter, the opposite party No.1 stated that if the complainant is not willing to wait for more time, then he can seek refund. The relevant portion of letter is reproduced hereunder:-"2. The above provisionally allotted plot is presently not fully clear in all the respects due to unavoidable technical reasons and circumstances beyond our control. We are trying our best to complete all the related formalities/ sanctions/ approvals from Govt. authorities, as early as possible. Therefore, you are requested to bear with us for some more time. We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to you in this regard.
3. In case you are not willing to wait for more time, then we are ready to refund your entire deposited amount with us, and you may approach the office of society and company in this regard at any time (preferably with prior appointment)."
20. The opposite party No.5 further stated vide its letter dated 15.05.2017, Ex.C-13, that the delay in giving physical possession of the provisionally allotted Plot No.403(A) is due to technical reasons and not intentionally. It is a matter of fact that despite receiving the substantial amount from the complainant no agreement was executed.
21. On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 2 to prove their bonafide has placed on record Letter of Change of Land Use (CLU) issued from Department of Housing and Urban Development on 28.12.2006 (Ex.OP-2). This change of land use was subject to deposit of CLU, EDC and other charges levied by the State Government from time to time. Further, they placed on the record another notification dated 13.10.2009 (Ex.OP-3), vide which OPs No.1&2 was exempted under Section 44 of the PAPRA subject to the following conditions:-
"viii) The development works shall be carried out in accordance with the lay-out plan sanctioned by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab (Competent Authority) keeping in view with such general guidelines as the Department of Housing and Urban Development may issue in respect of such Housing Projects from time to time.
ix) XX XX XX XX XX
x) The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under Section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.
xi) The promoter acquires the entire project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and requested to be acquired by Government.
xii) The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the Final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.
xiii) Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environmental & Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14-9-2007 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.
xiv) Promoter will not carry out any works on the site till above conditions are fulfilled."
22. The opposite parties have not tendered any document in their evidence to prove that above mentioned conditions have been complied with. Mere notification issued by the Government is not sufficient to prove that the opposite parties have complied with the conditions.
23. Further, the opposite parties placed on record a letter dated 18.06.2014, Ex.OP-4 with regard to Approval of Revised Layout Plan of M/s Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., which was also subject to various terms and conditions as narrated in the letter. However, opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to place on record any document to prove whether those terms and conditions have been complied with.
24. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 placed on record two another letters dated 09.12.2013 and 22.08.2014 with regard to Sewerage Connection and Supply of Drinking water. In the said letter, GMADA stated that the lines have not been laid and opposite parties No.1 & 2 have to arrange themselves. The letters proved on record by opposite parties No.1 & 2 is of year 2013 and 2014, however, the complaint is filed in the year 2019. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to prove on record that what efforts they made to get the basic facilities from the GMADA.
25. To initiate any project, the opposite parties are required to follow the basic approvals as laid down in Section 3, 4 and 6 of the PAPRA. According to these provisions, the opposite parties shall not issue any advertisement, prospectus or offer of sale of any apartment or invite application till it completes the above referred formalities that it has been registered as a Promoter under Section 21(2) of the Act, disclose the area of plots, price payable, layout plan of validity of the license issued by the Competent Authority and under Section 6 that maximum 25% of the price can be accepted before entering into agreement and in the agreement, it should be clearly mentioned as to when the possession shall be delivered. In this case, a substantial amount was received but possession has not been delivered to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties contravened the provisions of PAPRA for not delivering the possession despite receiving a hefty amount towards the cost of the plot. Even in the allotment letter or in any other correspondence, no outer date has been given as to when the possession of the plot will be given after making development at the site. In case we go through the conditions laid down by the competent authority, when CLU or approval of zoning plan was given, opposite party No.1 have not complied with the directions given in those documents. The opposite parties have not placed on record any document showing the final date as to when the possession will given. In case no outer date is given in the allotment letter then it could be taken as a reasonable time, which can be 3 years and in the instant case opposite party No.1 have issued allotment letter in the year 2016 then the plot should have been developed and its possession should have been offered to the complainant within a period of 3 years, whereas the complainant has been depositing the payment from 19.12.2006 onwards and since then she is looking toward the opposite parties to deliver the possession but with no result. In these circumstances, the complainant cannot be expected to wait for an unlimited period.
26. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. There is not an iota of evidence led by the opposite parties to rebut the averments made in the complaint by way of authenticated documentary evidence. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the plot in a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of land and construction in a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with the opposite parties, she would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the plot booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that it had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the plot, due to which the complainant have suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of development of the project site, as mentioned in Section 9 of PAPRA. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In such circumstances, ever increasing cost of construction and the damages for loss of opportunities caused which resulted in injury to the complainant, are also required to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation. In addition to that he is also entitled to compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by him on account of the betrayal by the opposite parties in shattering their hope of getting the plot by waiting for all this period.
27. As per Rule 17 of the "Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
"17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement: The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."
28. Now the question is to decide who will be liable to comply the directions issued or to pay the refund/compensation on account of delay on the part of the opposite parties. In this regard, we have gone through the record and found that no agreement was entered into between the opposite parties to fix the liability of any of the party, rather all the parties were receiving the payments from the complainant. In the present case, opposite party No.5 issued the Membership to the complainant. Later, opposite party No.5 got merged in opposite party No.1, accordingly opposite party No.5 stepped into the shoe of opposite party No.1. Moreover, opposite party No.1 has issued the allotment letter to the complainant and opposite parties No.2 to 4 are the Directors of opposite party No.1 who are performing the functions of administrative as well as financial on behalf of opposite party No.1. Therefore, we are of the view that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the directions to be issued to the opposite parties.
29. Vide Allotment Letter dated 04.03.2016, Ex.C-9, the complainant was allotted a 10 Marla (250 sq. yards) plot at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per sq. yard for the land cost, which the complainant has paid in full, however, the amount has not been specifically mentioned in the agreement. Further, as per allotment letter dated 04.03.2016, Ex.C-9 in para 6 it has been shown that only Rs.1,75,000/- is pending to be paid on account of development charges and land cost is NIL. The plea of the complainant is also that she had paid the land cost to the opposite parties and only Rs.1,75,000/- remained, seems to be just. The opposite parties have intentionally not mentioned the land cost, for which an inference is to be drawn that the land cost was paid by the complainant. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that they have not charged any price for land. The presumption is that the entire land cost except Rs.1,75,000/- was paid, only then allotment letter was issued. Non-mentioning of the total consideration is an intentional act of the opposite parties to deceive the complainant and amounts to unfair trade practice on their part.
30. As mentioned above, the opposite parties have failed to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause and, thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed in her complaint along with interest and compensation.
31. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-
(i) to give physical possession of plot bearing No.403(A), measuring 250 sq. yards, Sector 86, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc. complete in all respects within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to balance sale consideration, if any, without interest and penalty; and
(ii) to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses;
In case the opposite parties fail to deliver the possession within two months, as ordered above, then in the alternative
(i) to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
(ii) to pay Rs.40,000/-, as compen
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
sation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and towards litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.159 of 2019 32. Similarly in this case the complainant, became Member of opposite party No.5 by paying Rs.5,110/- as Membership. The opposite party No.5 issued a Certificate of Registration, wherein the complainant was given share of 8 Marla Plot under Serial No. R-771 on 24.09.2008, vide Ex.C-4. A Letter of Intent was also issued in the name of the complainant by opposite party No.5 vide Ex.C-5. Thereafter, an Allotment Letter 16.09.2010 was issued by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant, wherein she was allotted a plot bearing No.585, measuring 8 Marla approx. in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. In the said Allotment Letter, the opposite party No.1 raised demand of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of 50% of development charges. In the said letter, it was also stated that the possession would be offered to the allottee after development of the whole sector, which may take approximately 2-3 years. Later on, the opposite party No.1 issued another Allotment Letter dated 27.03.2014, Ex.C-15, wherein in para 6 it is mentioned that there is nothing due towards the complainant. In the said Allotment Letter, the complainant was allotted another plot provisionally bearing No.656. The complainant has already paid the total sale consideration as per receipts as Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9, Ex.C-12, Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14. The complainant vide letters dated 15.10.2016 & 26.09.2017, Ex.C-16 & Ex.C-17 asked opposite party No.1 to hand over the physical possession of the plot complete in all respects but to no avail. 33. Upon notice opposite parties No.1, 2 & 5 appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, whereas opposite parties No. 3 & 4 did not appear despite their service and were proceeded against ex-parte. 34. The opposite parties No.1, 2 & 5 also took similar pleas in their reply as have been taken by them in the reply to CC No.157 of 2019. 35. Learned counsel for both the sides raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.157 of 2019. 36. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.157 of 2019, this complaint is also allowed in the same terms. The following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- (i) to give physical possession of plot bearing No.656, measuring 200 sq. yards, Sector 86, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc. complete in all respects within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to balance sale consideration, if any, without interest and penalty; and (ii) to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses; In case the opposite parties fail to deliver the possession within two months, as ordered above, then in the alternative (i) to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; (ii) to pay Rs.40,000/-, as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and towards litigation expenses. 37. The compliance of these orders shall be made by the opposite parties within the period mentioned above from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 38. These complaints could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the court cases.