State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. vs Navdeep Singh on 14 October, 2021
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Appeal No. 1 of 2021 Date of Institution 30.12.2020 Date of Decision 14.10.2021 M/s Siswan Paradise Private Limited, through M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd., SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory. .....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Lakhwinder Singh Resident of St. No.4 Model town, Panchim Vihar, Sito Road, Abohar district fazilka Punjab. .....Appellant Versus Navdeep Singh, R/o 35, Near Kabir Park, PO RS Mills, GT Road, Amritsar 143104. .....Respondent/Complainant M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd., SCO No.46-47, first Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory. M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd., SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory. .....Respondents/Opposite Party No.2 & 3 BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by: None for the appellants.
Sh. Mukesh Mehra, Advocate for Respondent No.1/complainant.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 17.7.2018, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh now District Commission-II (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.757 of 2017, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -
"a. To refund an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment;
b. To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony, harassment.
c. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.
The order shall be complied with by Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief."
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent No.1 approached the representative of Respondent/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, who told him that Opposite Party No.1/appellant i.e. their sister concern is selling farm house at Village Siswan in the proposed project, duly approved by GMADA, Govt. of Punjab and all basic amenities like roads, water lines, sewerage line etc. would also be provided. It was stated that being allured by the representation made by the Opposite Parties vide application No.72093, that he won a Cottage Farm House in the draw of lots held on 14.06.2012 at Chandigarh and allotment with Preference/Docket No.SSQP-095 Cottage Farm House of 605 sq. yard has been made by the parties (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that the total sale consideration of said farm house was Rs.6.50 lacs and the complainant/respondent No.1 gave first installment of Rs.2.50 lacs to the Opposite Parties through cheque against receipt No.787 vide Annexure C-2. It was further stated that the respondent No.1 was shocked when he saw a Public Notice in newspaper issued by GMADA, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab informing the general public that the farm house was being sold by appellant/Opposite Party No.1 and marketed by Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, without taking development license from the concerned authority. It was further stated that the complainant/respondent No.1 approached the Opposite Parties seeking refund of the amount to which they flatly refused and then a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against ex-parte, by the District Commission, on 16.11.2017.
The Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 filed their joint reply and stated that the answering Opposite Parties have not sold the farm houses in question and the answering Opposite Parties were only doing the marketing of the project. It was further stated that they did not receive any payment from the complainant nor issued any receipt nor were the Directors. It was further stated that Siswan Paradise was never the sister concern of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 nor there is any documentary proof to that effect. It was further stated that the complainant himself admitted that he paid the installment to Opposite Party No.1, therefore, they are not having any knowledge of receipt of the same. It was further stated that there was no unfair trade practice as the payment has been received by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
We have heard the Counsel for the respondent No.1/Complainant, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant, 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.
On going through the record of the case, this Commission finds that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 have not been granted necessary permissions/approvals from the concerned departments which are pre-requisites for launching Real Estate Project when the aforesaid appellant had collected a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent No.1 against the price of cottage farm house in question. This is a clear cut violation of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995.
The appellants have not been appearing to contest the case and were preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. Therefore, this Commission feels that the learned District Commission-II was right in allowing the complaint and this Commission also upholds the order of the District Commission and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is to be dismissed.
This order also disposes of MA/2/2021 and MA/3/2021 wherein the appellants made applications for condonation of delay of 223 days and for staying operation of the order dated 17.7.2017 passed by the District Commission-II, Chandigarh in Complaint Case No.757 of 2017. Since the appeal stands dismissed, both miscellaneous applications becomes infructuous.
No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the respondent No.1.
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 Commission is upheld.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
14.10.2021 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER Sd/-
[RAJESH K. ARYA] MEMBER GP