State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Taneja Developers vs S.K.Sharma on 6 November, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1575 of 2011
Date of institution: 31.10.2011
Date of decision : 06.11.2012
1. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., SCO 1098-99, Sector
22-B, Chandigarh through its Principal Officer.
2. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office at 9,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi through its Principal Officer.
3. The Principal Officer M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.,
Customer Support Centre, Hotel Block, New Delhi - 110001.
.....Appellants
Versus
S.K.Sharma s/o Sh.Rahda Krishan resident of House No.1219, Universal
Enclave, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 21.09.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Before:-
Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
Presiding Judicial Member
Sardar Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh.S.K.Monga, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Alok Jagga, Advocate
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.1574 of 2011 (M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. & others v. Ashu Sharma and another) and First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 (M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. & others v. S.K.Sharma) filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 2 Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (in short the District Forum) as the facts and law involved in both these appeals are identical. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status as they enjoyed before the District Forum.
2. The case of the complainant is that in February, 2008, the OPs approached the complainant for allotment and possession of residential accommodation measuring 250 square yards in the future project which was coming up at Mohali. At that time, the complainant was searching for residential dewelling unit in and around Chandigarh for his own personal use. He, accordingly, deposited Rs.6,87,500/- through a demand draft dated 13.2.2008 with the OPs and signed an agreement on that date, in view of which, offer for allotment for residential plot was to be made by the appellants within 12 months from the date of registration of the application. It was also agreed that if the OPs were unable to offer allotment within one year, the complainant would have the right to withdraw the amount deposited by him with simple interest @ 15% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. It was alleged that the OPs issued a letter dated 18.9.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.2.75 lacs towards the sale consideration but no mention was made regarding the allotment in favour of the complainant. The complainant got suspicions of the acts of the OPs, went to the site in Mohali and was surprised to see that no construction has been started by the OPs. He then contacted the officials at Delhi and Chandigarh and was told that certain assertions given by the OPs that the project has been approved by the Punjab Government or GMADA were false. The OPs, however, did not send any reply to the First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 3 request made by the complainant who thereafter issued reminders but the OPs insisted on payment. It was contended by the complainant that before the lay out/zoning plan are cleared from the competent authority, no developer/builder is entitled/permitted to advertise or collect money from the general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space. The OPs were to first obtain the clearance of the project from various departments and only thereafter, it could advertise and collect the money from the applicants. The contention of the complainant is that the OP was deficient in this respect, it amounts to unfair trade practice and he has lost faith of the complainant. He, therefore, prayed for the refund of Rs.6,87,500/- along with interest @ 15% per annum, Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony, harassment, tension and torture and Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint was opposed by the OP-appellants alleging that it had sent a proposal for development of an area which was accepted by the Directorate of Industries, Punjab and Letter of Intent was issued on 31.8.2006. The OP was already in the process of purchasing the land in the area for development project, it was to spend on external development charges in accordance with the law. The complainant and many other persons approached the OP-appellants to register themselves for allotment of residential/commercial plots in the future township projects. It was admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.6,87,500/- vide demand draft dated 13.2.2008 and he was to deposit 10% of the total sale amount at the time of offer of allotment. It was admitted that the OPs issued him a letter dated 18.9.2008 making an offer of allotment of a residential project and the amount deposited by the First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 4 complainant was adjusted as booking amount for the same. The complainant was requested to remit an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- towards sale consideration of the plot but he did not send the amount and rather issued a letter dated 28.9.2008 which was totally uncalled for. The OPs issued reminders to deposit the remaining amount and when the complainant became in arrears of Rs.7,96,715/-, another letter dated 22.12.2009 was issued. After a long wait, when no payment was made, the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 6.1.2011 and the earnest money was forfeited. It was alleged that another plot was booked by the family of the complainant which shows they were doing it for commercial purpose but due to slump in the real estate market, they were unable to get premium over the registration deposit and, therefore, refused to pay further amounts. The OPs, therefore, maintained that neither the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount nor to compensation or costs.
4. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 21.9.2011 allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6,87,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum along with Rs.1 lac as compensation amount and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. The OP has challenged the same through the present appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 5
7. The contention of the OPs that the residential plot was booked by the complainant for a commercial purpose was not accepted by the learned District Forum and we are also not inclined to accept the same. There is no evidence produced by the OPs if the complainant contacted any person for sale of the proposed allotment or to transfer the deposit in favour of some other person after obtaining premium thereof. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the plot was booked by the complainant for his residential purpose and it was not for a commercial purpose.
8. The OPs did not produce any document on record to suggest if the project in which the allotment was made by them in favour of the complainant was approved by the Punjab Government or GMADA. No Letter of Intent has been produced by the OP to support their contention. It appears the project of the OP has not been approved so far and they started collecting money from the intending purchasers by mis-representing that their housing project is approved by the Punjab Government and GMADA. Even in the written statement filed by the OPs, they maintained their stand regarding the approval but did not lead any evidence to prove the same. The OP has not produced any evidence if the amount collected by them was ever deposited with the Government or any other competent authority as development charges or fee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in collecting the amount without obtaining approval of the project from different Departments before developing the housing project and obtaining the deposits against it. In this respect, we are supported by the authority reported as KAMAL SOOD V. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED III (2007) CPJ 7 (NC). First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 6
9. When the OPs demanded the additional amount of Rs.2.75 lacs, the complainant wrote a letter dated 28.9.2008 asking the OPs to send him the approval letters issued to the OPs by the competent authority. The OPs did not send any such information to the complainant obviously due to the reason that it had not got the project approved so far. Had the project been approved or the lay out/zonal plan had been approved, there was no hitch in sending the copies thereof to the complainant but the OPs did not send any such letters. This fact also proves beyond doubt that the OPs had not got the project approved and had started collecting money from the intending purchasers by mis- representing that the said housing project has been approved by the authorities.
10. The learned District Forum in its detailed judgment found that the OPs were not entitled to retain the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,87,500/- deposited with it and it should, therefore, refund the same along with interest. Needless to mention that the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice and caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid and does not call for any interference. There is no merit in both the appeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with costs. Litigation costs in each appeal are assessed at Rs.25,000/-.
11. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 31.10.2011. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, if any, First Appeal No.1575 of 2011 7 accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the respondent- complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1574 of 2011
12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 31.10.2011. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the registry to the respondent- complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER November 06, 2012.
Paritosh