State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pardeep Singh vs Punjab State Federation Of Cooperative ... on 16 March, 2018
Daily Order 2nd Additional Bench PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No.161 of 2018 Date of institution : 01.03.2018 Date of reserved : 07.03.2018 Date of decision: 16.03.2018 Pardeep Singh son of Kundan Singh Sandhu, resident of 146, Model Town, Jalandhar City. .....Complainant Versus The Punjab State Federation of Co-Operative House Building Societies Ltd., (Housefed Punjab) SCO 150-152, Sector 34, Chandigarh through its Chairman. .....Opposite party Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Before:- Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Present:-
For the complainant : Mrs. Priya Anand, Advocate Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Order
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that the OP had floated a Co-Operative Housing Scheme of built-up flats at Kapurthala from 17.11.2008 to 03.12.2008. The Op was to construct 216 super deluxe flats of 1847.28 square feet area and 24 EWS flats of 405.47 square feet area. The complainant applied for one super deluxe flat and was allotted the same on 23.01.2009 at tentative cost of Rs.28.75 lakh out of which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- at the time of submitting the application. The complainant deposited the entire amount as per the schedule fixed by OP along with interest upto 28.02.2011. The possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainant on the payment of eight equated quarterly installments and the last installment was payable in the year 2011. The OP had delayed the possession until 15.05.2015 on which date complainant received the letter intimating to take the possession of the flat by 30.11.2015 vide another letter dated 16.10.2015 the OP asked the complainant to complete all formalities as per details given in the letter dated 28.07.2015 and take possession of the flat by 30.11.2015. the complainant was shocked from the said letter intimating the final cost of the flat to be paid by the complainant as Rs.35,58,008/- escalating the cost by Rs.5,87,008/- as per allotment letter. OP also demanded an interest of Rs.1008/- without giving any details. Then OP vide letter dated 16.10.2015 demanded Rs.18,81,224/- being the amount due towards the complainant. The complainant having no option and under fear of loss of possession of the flat, if not taken over within specified time frame and to avoid any sort of penalty for delayed payment complied with the illegal demand of the OP and deposited the said amount of Rs.18,81,224/- and took the possession of the flat on 30.11.2015.
2. After taking the possession, complainant shifted his residence to the said flat but found the flat and the building defective on many scores and not up to the mark as per advertisement/brochure issued by the OP at the time of the offer of the flat. Underneath water pipes were leaking causing dampness and damage to the RCC structure of column beams and slabs, damage to the painting and plaster work and dampness on all the walls. The kitchen was not as per the offer made. No cabinet storage unit or any other fittings were provided in the kitchen. The wood used was of substandard. One toilet of the flat was incomplete i.e. without any seat and taps. Although in the brochure all the fittings were proposed to be fitted in all the three washrooms and bathrooms. There is no provision along with the pipe lines for the plumbers to carry out day to day repair and maintenance of the pipes. There is no provision of supply of the fresh water for drinking purpose in the flats. The entire supply is from overhead tanks which the inhabitants have to drink, use for washing and bathing etc. which is unhygienic. The complainant got inspected the flat from a Architect and in the opinion of the expert the total cost required to correct the defects in the flat is Rs.3,50,000/-.
3. As per the brochure, the OP was to give a community park lush green lawns, modern street lighting, underground water reservoir and boosted water supply, shopping area but nothing has been provided by the Op. The OP took an electricity connection of 145 KVA in the year 2009. They just built only 72 super deluxe flats rather than 216 flats. Load for the same for the common was sanctioned 145 KW whereas the actual load is somewhere 32-35 KW. The resident of the super deluxe flats including the complainant have to pay extra electricity charges to the electricity department due to extra sanction of load which is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The extra charges should be borne to the extent of 2/3 by House fed till the sanctioned load is got reduced or the remaining flats are constructed. The OP has construed only 72 flats and still out of these 9 flats are unsold. As such the Ops are bound to contribute for the common area maintenance charges of the unsold flats. But inspite of their undertaking/commitment to pay has not paid the same. There is delay of more than four years in delivering possession by Housefed to the Complainant who had paid a sum of Rs.18,81,224/- which has been used by the OP and the complainant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum which works out to be Rs.9,83,250/-. The OP has violated the proposed plan as given at the time of booking and have constructed EWS flats next to the super deluxe flat and have invaded the privacy of the flat owners including the complainant. The OP indulged in unfair trade practice by raising the cost of the flat by Rs.5,87,008/-. The complainant approached the OP and requested to remove the above detailed defects and refund the excess amount and the interest due to the complainant but the OP refused to accede to the just demand of the complainant. The complainant has suffered a lot including mental agony. Hence, this complaint with the following prayer:-
To pay a sum of Rs.9,83,250/- as interest and further interest @18% PA till the date of realization on the sum of Rs.57,00,000/- for a period of four years and 9 months i.e. the delay in delivery of possession to the complainant.
To pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as assessed by the Government approved valuer to remove the deficiency and short comings in the flat delivered by the OP.
To direct the OP to get the load of electricity for the common area reduced from the electricity department and till then, pay 2/3rd of the electricity bills.
To provide fresh water/direct supply for drinking purpose to each of the flat including the flat number 102.
To pay the monthly maintenance of nine unsold flats till the flats are sold.
To pay a sum of Rs.5,87,008/- charged in excess by the OP allegedly being the difference claimed by the OP of the tentative cost and the actual cost.
The Ops be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- damages for deficiency in services and physical and mental torture to the complainant.
The Ops be directed to pay Rs.25000/- as cost of present complaint.
Any other relief, which may this Hon'ble Forum deem fit in the light of the facts and circumstances may also be granted to the complainant.
4. The counsel for the complainant at the time of the admission of the complaint argued that the cause of the action arose to the complainant on 30.11.2015 when the possession was delivered to the complainant and is still continue with every day the defects in the flat coming to the knowledge of the complainant. The cause of action is still continuing as the defects have not be rectified and even otherwise the amount which has been levied/increased unreasonably is still with the OP. She prayed to allow the complaint.
5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and averments in the complaint carefully.
6. From the above, it is evident that the complainant took over the possession of the flat in question on 30.11.2015 after paying all the dues of OP. Therefore, the cause of action had arisen as on 30.11.2015. As per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced below, a complaint can be filed within two years from the accrual of cause of action.
Limitation Period:- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complaint satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay.
7. There is no application filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint explaining the reasons for delay and requesting to condone the delay, if any, as provided under sub-section 2 of Section 24A. In case, the possession was taken on 30.11.2015 then the limitation to file the complaint was 30.11.2017. Whereas the complaint was filed on 07.03.2018, therefore, it is clearly time barred and without any application to condone the delay, we cannot condone the delay. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable being barred by limitation.
8. Sequel to the above, the complaint is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member March 16 ,2018 (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) PK/- Member