State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sukhdev Kaur vs Preet Land Promoters And Developers ( P) ... on 12 September, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2022
Date of institution : 13.09.2022
Date of reserve : 02.09.2024
Date of decision : 12.09.2024
Sukhdev Kaur aged about 70 years R/o village Paraul, Sub Tehsil
Majri, Tehsil and District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) PIN 140901 now
residing at 2807 Po Wah House, Lok Wah Estate, Hong-Kong through
her SPA Jaspreet Singh son of S.Baldev Singh, resident of village
Madnipur, Tehsil Payal and District Ludhiana.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd., Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali) Punjab-140501
2. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140501 through its Director Charanjit
Singh Saini.
2nd Address:
H.No.159B, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)-
140301.
3. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-140501 through its Director Kanwaljeet
Singh Walia.
2nd Address:
H.No.1568, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh-160022
4. Ashok Kukreja, Director of Preet Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o
H.No.1328, Sector 37B, Chandigarh-160036.
5. Narinder Singh, Director of Preet Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o
H.No.3647, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, (Mohali), Punjab-160069.
6. Yash Pal, Director of Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt.
Ltd., r/o H.No.1444-D, Sushant City Sector Road, Kundali,
District Sonepat, Haryana-131001
(Email: [email protected]) (Deleted vide order dated
06.01.2023)
.....Opposite Parties
2) Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2022
Date of institution : 03.10.2022
Date of reserve : 02.09.2024
Date of decision : 12.09.2024
CC No.63 of 2022 2
Jaspreet Singh aged about 42 years son of S. Baldev Singh, resident
of Village Madnipur, Tehsil Payal and District Ludhiana.
.....Complainant
Versus
1. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd., Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali) Punjab-140501
2. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140501 through its Director Charanjit
Singh Saini.
2nd Address:
H.No.159B, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)-
140301.
3. Preet Land Promoters and Developers (P) Ltd. Sector 86, SAS
Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-140501 through its Director Kanwaljeet
Singh Walia.
2nd Address:
H.No.1568, Sector 34-D, Chandigarh-160022
4. Ashok Kukreja, Director of Preet Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o
H.No.1328, Sector 37B, Chandigarh-160036.
5. Narinder Singh, Director of Preet Developers Pvt. Ltd., R/o
H.No.3647, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, (Mohali), Punjab-160069.
6. Yash Pal, Director of Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt.
Ltd., r/o H.No.1444-D, Sushant City Sector Road, Kundali,
District Sonepat, Haryana-131001
(Email: [email protected]) (Deleted vide order dated
06.01.2023)
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Ms. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member Argued by:
For the complainant : Sh. Navjit Singh Advocate For OPs No.1 & 2 : Sh. Paramjit Batta, Advocate For OPs No. 3 & 5 : Ex-parte For OP No.4 : Sh. Anish Gupta, Advocate For OP No.6 : Deleted, vide order dt.06.01.2023 ..............................................................................................CC No.63 of 2022 3
KIRAN SIBAL, PRESIDING MEMBER This order will dispose of the above mentioned two (2) consumer complaints filed by the different complainants against the same builder/developer/director/opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, "the Act"), as similar questions of law and facts are involved in both the complaints. The facts are taken from C.C. No.63 of 2022 titled as "Sukhdev Kaur Vs. Preet Land Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors."
Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2022
2. The complainant, Sukhdev Kaur, has filed the present complaint through her SPA Jaspreet Singh against the OPs to pass the following orders/directions:-
i) To accept the complaint;
ii) To pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of Non-
delivery of possession of above said plot till date to the complainant;
iii) To pay interest @ 12% PA on the deposited amount of Rs.49,60,000/-, which comes out to be Rs.77,37,600/- (Rs.Seventy Seven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only), total claim amounting to Rs.1,26,97,600/- (Rs. One Crore Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Only) till its realization;
iv) To pay for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant along with immediate delivery of possession of plot bearing No.609;
v) To pay litigation expenses @ Rs.55,000/-;
CC No.63 of 2022 4
vi) Any other relief deemed fit to the facts and circumstances of the case
3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant had purchased the membership of Akash Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., and she became member of the same by paying membership fee of Rs.5,110/- on 06.11.2008 to the said society. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.13,75,000/- on 06.11.2008, vide receipt No.3547 as cost of land along with Rs.2,00,000/- as development charges, vide receipt No.3840 with the said society. On 31.10.2009, letter of intent was issued in favour of the complainant vide Memo No.DK/Gen/R-994/010/180 in which plot measuring 250 Sq. yard was booked in the name of complainant by the said society. It has further been averred that the original land was owned by two societies; namely, "The Akash Co-operative H/B Society Limited" and "The Dastkar Cooperative H/B Society Limited" and the said land was transferred in the name of Preet Land Promoters and Development Pvt. Ltd. (OPs) for development of the area and the allotment of residential plots to the members of the respective societies. Thus, the allotment of plots was being made by the opposite parties on behalf of the above mentioned two societies. Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly visited the office of the OPs for getting possession of her plot for which she gave her deposits, but the OPs did not fulfill their claims and asked for further development charges, upon which the complainant deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- through cheque No.236655, Rs.1,15,000/- through cheque No.930380 and CC No.63 of 2022 5 Rs.85,000/- through cheque No.378065. The OPs after taking the said cheques issued receipts No.1671, 1672 & 1673 respectively. The complainant further stated that she came to know that the OPs have allotted 70-80 % plots of Preet City to their nears and dears in an arbitrary manner or without making any draw as assured by them. On raising objection, the complainant was made satisfied by allotting a plot bearing No.609 vide memo No.AK-994/0058 and as per final allotment letter, the complainant had to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as remaining development charges to the OPs, which she is ready to pay on demand. However, till date the OPs have not given possession of the plot bearing No.609, rather used the hard earned money of the complainant. Even the plot measuring 250 sq.yard was allotted to the complainant but on calculating the dimensions of the plot from the site plan, it comes to 225 Sq. yard only, which is less than the assured allotted area. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.31,25,000/- with the OPs as well as previous society, which has been taken over by the OPs against receipts and amount of Rs.13,75,000/- was deposited as cost of land along with Rs.4.6 lacs as development charges with the OPs. Out of the said amount Rs.17,44,890/- was paid through agent of OPs namely Baljit Singh in cash. As such, a total sum of Rs.49,55,000/- has been paid to the OPs but they failed to deliver the possession of the allotted plot. Alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint for granting relief as prayed for. CC No.63 of 2022 6
4. Upon notice, OP No.1, 2 and 4 have appeared and filed written replies. However, OPs No. 3 & 5 have failed to appear despite service. As such, OPs No. 3 & 5 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2022. The name of OP No.6 was deleted from the array of Opposite parties on the request of learned counsel for the complainant, as he does not want to proceed against him.
5. OP No.1 & 2 have filed joint written reply, wherein they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. "The Akash Co-Op House Building Society Ltd." of which the complainant is admittedly one of the member and the "GMADA Mohali, Punjab'. On merits, the facts with regard to the complainant being one of the member of the society, depositing of membership fee, deposit of the amount so mentioned in para No.1 to 4, receipt issued by the said society and transfer of land for the purpose of development, except issuance of letter of intent are not disputed being a matter of record by OPs No.1 & 2. They further stated that the letter of intent appears to be a forge and fabricated one. Moreover, a total sum of Rs.20 lacs has been deposited by the complainant against the booking of a plot out of which Rs.13.75 lac is on account of land cost and Rs.6.25 lac on account of development charges and the last installment of Rs.1.25 lac is still due to the complainant, which is to be paid by her to the society at the time of handing over the physical possession of the plot. The complainant has not deposited any other amount with the society except the said amount of Rs.20 lac. The OPs CC No.63 of 2022 7 had neither received any amount as shown in annexure C-1 nor issued any such receipt in order to acknowledge the same. The OPs do not deal with any of the agent except its registered members and in case any member is dealing with any dealer in selling or purchasing the plots, it is the individual dealing of the member and answering OPs do not have any connection with it. The OPs further stated that the drawing/site plan under which the plot was allotted to the complainant in 2010 was approved tentatively by the GMADA but due to certain other conditions introduced by GMADA in carving out of the plots, which was mandatory in nature to be followed by the societies/developers alike the answering OPs, the OPs had to change the drawing of the Sector and submitted another drawing which was approved by GMADA. The OPs further stated that they have tried their level best to accommodate each and every member of the society to allot the plots but they are unable to do so for the reason that the land on which the plot allotted to the complainants falls under the Revenue Rasta, which is yet to be cleared by the GMADA. The GMADA has not cleared even amended plans. About 12 acres of land dividing Sector 86 and 87 has been acquired by GMADA for the development/carpeting of new road by GMADA but the OPs have not been compensated for the same by providing alternative land or by making payment of adequate compensation at par with agriculturist which resulted into shortage of about 12 acres of land with the OPs on which more than 300-400 plots of different sizes could have been carved out. In fact, GMADA had paid about Rs.4.5 crore (approx.) per CC No.63 of 2022 8 acre as compensation to the agriculturist/farmers whose land has been acquired by it, whereas, only a meager sum of Rs.1.25 Crore (approx.) has been paid to the society as compensation for the acquisition of land. Due to this reason, OPs could not purchase the land in order to carved out the plots for its members due to higher price in the market. The OPs further stated that they have entered into an agreement dated 05.12.2012 with GMADA, whereby the GMADA has given an undertaking, they will initiate the process of purchasing the land of Revenue Rasta from the concerned Gram Panchayat and will hand over the same to the OPs. The duty was cast upon the OPs to give the alternative passage to the villagers by carving out the road, which has been duly completed by the OPs, immediately thereafter but till date no efforts have been made by the GMADA or the concerned department by issuing the necessary notification for acquisition of the land falling under the Revenue Rasta, thus the OPs are unable to handover the possession of plot to the complainant despite their best sincere efforts. As soon as the land of Revenue Rasta is cleared by GMADA, by issuing necessary notification and duly handed over to the OPs, the physical possession of the plot to the share of the complainant will definitely be handed over to her and in case the complainant does not want to wait, in that case the OPs are ready to refund the total amount so deposited with it. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
CC No.63 of 2022 9
6. In reply to complaint, OP No.4 also raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law qua OP No.4 as no relief could be sought against him as he had no role against the relief sought by the complainant; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law qua OP No.4. On merits, OP No.4 stated that he has no concern with the complainant in any manner as re-allotment has been issued to her on 12.03.2012, whereas he had already resigned from the Directorship of OP No.1 on 13.09.2010 and OP No.1 had already accepted his resignation. As per memorandum of understanding dated 10.09.2010 executed between OP No.1 and OP No.4, the continuing directors are only liable to pay off all the liabilities of past and future. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua him.
7. To prove the claim of the complainant, her attorney filed his affidavit along with copies of documents i.e. acknowledgment receipt of Rs.31,25,000/- as Ex.C-1, receipt regarding membership of Akash Housing Building Society Ex.C-2, receipt of cost of land of Rs.13.75 lacs Ex.C-3, certificate of registration of the Akash Housing Building Society Ltd. dated 06.11.2008 Ex.C-4, letter of intent dated 31.10.2009 Ex.C-5, receipts regarding deposit of development charges Ex.C-6 and allotment letter Ex.C-7.
CC No.63 of 2022 10
8. In rebuttal OP No.1 & 2 filed affidavit of Sh. C.S.Saini, Director, Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. along with copies of documents i.e. communications written to Secretary(PWD) by OPs No.1 regarding permission for acquiring/purchase of PWD Revenue Pathways(Rasta) of land in question, as annexure OP-1 (colly). OP No.4 filed his affidavit along with copies of documents i.e. acceptance of resignation annexure R4/1, memorandum of understanding annexure R4/2, portal of Ministry of corporate affairs showing tenure of OP No.4 as director of OP No.1 annexure R4/3.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appearing parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them and record of the case carefully.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant strongly contended that the complainant purchased the plot measuring 250 Sq. Yards from OPs in November 2008 by paying Rs.50 lacs approximately. Initially letter of intent was issued to the complainant on 31.10.2009 by mentioning her plot and later on allotment letter was issued by mentioning plot number as 609. The learned counsel further argued that in the allotment letter it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is pending and the same is to be deposited at the time of handing over the possession, but the OPs have failed to hand over the possession despite receiving the entire payment except Rs.1.25 lacs. The delay of 15 years in handing over the possession is totally unjustified and also amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The learned counsel further CC No.63 of 2022 11 argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the present complaint.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has also argued on the lines of the pleadings, as given in their reply. They have obtained all the necessary approvals to develop the project and have developed their sectors as per norms of GMADA. The learned counsel further argued that OPs No.1 & 2 are ready to deliver the physical possession of the plot to the share of the complainant only after clearance of land of revenue rasta by GMADA. He further contended that there is no fault on the part of OPs for delayed delivery of possession of the said plot. In case the complainant does not want to wait, the OPs are ready to refund the total amount so deposited by complainant. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the answering OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua them.
12. The learned counsel for OP No.4 also argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply filed by him and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua him.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appearing parties.
14. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the merits of the present complaints are squarely covered by the earlier verdicts given by this Commission in following cases:
CC No.63 of 2022 12
i) Consumer Complaint No.359 of 2019 (Jyoti Bala Vs. Preet Land Promoters & others) alongwith another complaint, decided on 27.08.2019;
ii) Consumer Complaint No.08 of 2019 (Swarn Preet Singh Vs. Preet Land Promoters & others), decided on 30.03.2020;
iii) Consumer Complaint No.287 of 2019 (Mrs. Ginny Bansal Vs. M/s Preet Land Promoters & others) alongwith another complaint, decided on 30.03.2020;
iv) Consumer Complaint No.893 of 2019 (Capt. Makhan Singh Vs. Preet Land Promoters & others) alongwith another complaint, decided on 23.09.2020;
v) Consumer Complaint No.908 of 2019 (Shakuntla Devi Vs. Preet Land Promoters & Others) along with another complaint decided on 13.10.2020.
So, we proceed to dispose of the present complaints, in view of the decisions given in the above noted cases.
15. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant had purchased the membership of Akash Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., and she became member of the same by paying membership fee of Rs.5,110/- on 06.11.2008 (Ex.C-2) to the said society. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.13,75,000/- on 06.11.2008, vide receipt No.3547 (Ex.C-3) as cost of land along with Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- as development charges, vide receipt No.3840 & 4323 (Ex.C-6) with the said society. On 31.10.2009, letter of intent was issued in favour of the complainant vide Memo No.DK/Gen/R-994/010/180(Ex.C-5) in which plot measuring 250 Sq. yard was booked in the name of complainant by the said society. It has been submitted by the complainant that despite visiting the office of the OPs several times for getting possession of her plot, the OPs did not fulfill their obligations and asked for payment of further CC No.63 of 2022 13 development charges, upon which the complainant deposited sum of Rs.50,000/- through cheque No.236655, Rs.1,15,000/- through cheque No.930380 and Rs.85,000/- through cheque No.378065. The complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.609 vide memo No.AK- 994/0058(Ex.C-7) and as per final allotment letter, the complainant had to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as remaining development charges to the OPs, which she is ready to pay on demand. The complainant alleged that the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the said plot to the complainant despite receiving the substantial amounts, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
16. First of all, we would like to decide the preliminary objection raised by OPs No.1 & 2 that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. 'The Akash Co- operative House Building Society Ltd'. as well as the 'GMADA'. It is not in dispute that the complainant was the member of said society and it is also not in dispute the land owned by 'Akash Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd.' as well as 'The Dastkar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.' was transferred in the name of Preet Land Promoters and Development Pvt. Ltd. for development of the area and to allot residence plot to the members of the society. Accordingly, OP No.1 is duly authorized on behalf of the said societies to deal with the members of such societies and to allot the plot to the complainant. The OP No.1 allotted the plot No.609 in favour of the complainant vide allotment letter Ex.C-7, and it is bound to comply with the terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Hence, we do not find any CC No.63 of 2022 14 force in the contention raised by OP No.1 & 2 and the same is hereby rejected.
17. Now, we proceed to decide the main objection raised by OPs No.1 & 2 that there is no fault on their part, as the delay occurred due to government's new policy i.e. to keep 5% of land necessary for EWS category; increasing of green belt area by GMADA, as some area of land falls under Revenue Rasta, which has not been cleared by GMADA; acquiring of land by GMADA for the development of new roads and due to less compensation granted by GMADA to the OPs. Be that as it may, OPs No.1 & 2 have categorically admitted the delay in the development of the project and not delivering the physical possession of the plot in question to complainant in their written reply citing the above reasons. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is mandatory for any builder, before launching any project or scheme that too for residential purpose, to seek prior approval and clearance from the concerned department/authorities so that no hardship is caused to the allottees once a project is launched. In the present case, the plea of OPs No.1 & 2 with regard to difficulties faced by them on account of increasing of green belt area by GMADA, non clearance of revenue rasta by GMADA or less compensation granted by GMADA to the OPs, cannot support the case of the OPs as all these hindrances should have been cleared by them before accepting the amount from the allottees, as it was well within their knowledge that project would face huge hardship on this account. On other hand, the complainant had already paid the substantial amount of total sale consideration of CC No.63 of 2022 15 the plot to OPs i.e. Rs. 20 lacs. However, the complainant has failed to establish the fact that payment of Rs.31,25,000/- (Ex.C-1) was made to the OPs as the same was shown to be paid to one 'National Associates', Property consultants, who was not impleaded as party to the present complaint. It has been duly established on record that despite receipt of substantial amounts, the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the said plot to the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
18. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent pieces 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. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the plot within 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 development thereof within 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 injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested her money with the opposite parties, she would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot within a reasonable period, but it failed to do so. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be CC No.63 of 2022 16 commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. 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. Therefore, the OPs are liable to deliver possession of the plot in question, measuring 10 marlas in Sector 86, SAS Nagar to the complainant, along with the agreed amenities, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, if any. For delay in delivering possession of the plot, the OPs are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant. This leads to our next consideration as to determine the quantum of compensation, which is to be given on account of delay in handing over the possession. It is very relevant to mention here that after the perusal of letter of intent (Ex.C-5) and allotment letter (Ex.C-7), we are unable to find any terms and condition or clause, which stated the stipulated date of possession of the plot in question. Even the allotment letter itself is undated. Be that as it may, due to this peculiar situation, we are unable to determine the period of agreement as well as date of handing over the possession of plot. However, to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has already made a substantial part of payment and the allotment letter itself states that only Rs.1,25,000/- is remaining, therefore, we are inclined to award a compensation to the tune of CC No.63 of 2022 17 Rs.2,00,000/- towards period of delay caused by the OPs in handing over the possession of the plot. The complainant is also entitled for composite amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
19. So far as the contention raised by OP No.4 that he has no concern with the complainant in any manner as he had already resigned from the Directorship of OP No.1 on 13.09.2010 and OP No.1 had already accepted his resignation, is concerned, we find force in the contention raised by OP No.4, as it is clearly mentioned in the memorandum of understanding dated 10.09.2010 (Ex.R4/2) that OP No.4 had resigned from the Directorship of OP No.1 and the continuing directors are only liable to pay off all the liabilities of past and future. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No.4.
20. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed against the OPs (Except OPs No.4 & 6) and following directions are issued to them:-
i) to deliver possession of the plot in question, measuring 10 marlas in Section 86, SAS Nagar (Mohali), subject to payment of balance sale consideration by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-, within a period of three months.
ii) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards period of delay caused by the OPs in handing over the possession of the plot.
iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. CC No.63 of 2022 18 Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2022
21. Similarly, in this case, the complainant, Jaspreet Singh, had purchased the membership of Akash Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., and he became member of the same by paying membership fee of Rs.5,110/- on 20.03.2008 (Ex.C-2) to the said society. The complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.3,75,000/- on 26.03.2008, vide receipt No.3320 & 3321 respectively (Ex.C-3) as cost of land along with Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/- & Rs.2,50,000/- respectively as development charges, vide receipt No.3611, 4322 & 1553(Ex.C-7) with the said society. On 31.10.2009, letter of intent was issued in favour of the complainant vide Memo No.AK/Gen/R-891/010(Ex.C-5) in which plot measuring 250 Sq. yard was booked in the name of complainant by the said society. Initially vide allotment letter dated 19.07.2010 (Ex.C-8) the complainant was allotted plot No.397 measuring 10 marla in Section 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Subsequently, vide allotment letter dated 12.03.2012 (Ex.C-9) the complainant was allotted plot No.1021(N) and finally vide allotment letter bearing memo No.AK-891/0057 (Ex.C-10) he was allotted plot No.592. As per final allotment letter, the complainant had to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as remaining development charges to the OPs, which he is ready to pay on demand. The complainant alleged that the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the said plot to the complainant despite receiving the substantial amounts, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs. CC No.63 of 2022 19 Other allegations are similar to that Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2022. Similar documents have been filed, similar prayer has been made and similar arguments have been raised.
22. Upon notice, OP No.1, 2 and 4 have appeared and filed written replies on the similar lines of their reply as given in Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2022. However, OPs No. 3 & 5 have failed to appear despite service. As such, OPs No. 3 & 5 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2022. The name of OP No.6 was deleted from the array of Opposite parties on the request of learned counsel for the complainant, as he does not want to proceed against him.
23. In the present case, the complainant had already paid the substantial amount of total sale consideration of the plot to OPs i.e. Rs.18 Lac. However, the complainant has failed to establish the fact that payment of Rs.20,40,000/- (Ex.C-1) was made to the OPs as the same was shown to be paid to one 'National Associates', Property consultants, who was not impleaded as party to the present complaint. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2022, it has been duly established on record that despite receipt of substantial amounts, the OPs failed to deliver the possession of the said plot to the complainant, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly, this complaint is also partly allowed against the OPs (Except OPs No. 4 & 6) and following directions are issued to them:
CC No.63 of 2022 20
i) to deliver possession of the plot in question, measuring 10 marlas in Section 86, SAS Nagar (Mohali), subject to payment of balance sale consideration by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-, within a period of three months.
ii) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-
towards period of delay caused by the OPs in handing over the possession of the plot.
iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses
24. The compliance of the orders passed in above complaints shall be made by the OPs within a period of three months of the receipt of certified copies of the orders.
25. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(KIRAN SIBAL) PRESIDING MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER September 12, 2024.
(Dv)