State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Raj Kumar vs Taneja Developers And Infrastructure ... on 13 December, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 14.09.2012.
Date of Decision : 13.12.2013.
Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Parkash, R/o Village Baguwal, Tehsil
Balachaur, District Nawanshahr.
.....Complainant.
Versus
1. Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., through its
Managing Director/Principal Officer, Regd. Office 9, Kasturba
Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., through its
Manager, SCO No.1098-99, First Floor, Sector 22/B,
Chandigarh.
....Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint U/s 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
.................................................... Present:- Sh. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER Sh. Raj Kumar, complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed this complaint U/ 17 of the Consumer Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 2 Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver the possession of the plot allotted to him and to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. Facts in brief are that the opposite parties regularly published the advertisements regarding developing a Residential- cum-Commercial Sector in Mohali at Kharar-Chandigarh Road, near village Balongi. In the advertisement, the opposite parties were representing that the possessions of the plots are being delivered and whole of the infrastructure is ready to carve out a world-class township. The complainant, being allured by such advertisement, approached opposite party no.2 in April-May, 2008 for purchasing a residential house, as he wanted to shift from village Baguwal to Chandigarh, for higher studies of his children. The opposite parties informed that all the plots have been allotted, but some of the plots are available with certain authorized dealers. All these plots are transferable and introduced the complainant to M/s Nirgun Real Estate Private Limited, the said authorized dealer of the opposite parties.
3. On the said representation made by opposite party no.2, the complainant purchased one residential plot measuring 2.50 sq.yds. @ Rs.6500/- per sq.yd. and paid a sum of Rs.4,87,500/- through demand draft in favour of M/s Nirgun Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2008 through the said authorized dealer of opposite party no.2 and further paid a sum of Rs.5.40 lacs in cash on 28.05.2008. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.2,06,250/- as installment on 18.07.2008 to the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.1.00 lac as transfer charges on the same day. Transfer qua the plot was entered Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 3 in the records of the opposite parties and the name of the complainant was entered as transferee.
4. After the name of the complainant was entered in the records of the opposite parties, as transferee, he has been continuously contacting the opposite parties for possession of the plot and Sh. Sharanjit Singh Bains, Executive of opposite party no.2 informed him that the property number of the plot to be allotted to the complainant was 703. The plots are to be allotted in the lots of 250 and in the third lot, his term will come. He further assured that the plot will be allotted and the possession will be delivered on or before July, 2010. On 27.07.2010, the complainant received a call from Ms Jaspreet Kaur, Executive of opposite party no.2, who asked him to come and get the plot allotted. The complainant visited opposite party no.2 on the same day and he came empty handed and he was told to inquire within two days. After two days, it was told that his plot could not be finalized. On 11.08.2010, the complainant again contacted said Ms Jaspreet Kaur and he was asked to deposit 90% of the amount along with 50% EDC. The complainant immediately on 14.08.2010 sent three cheques amounting to Rs.11,81,250/-. The cheques were handed over to the opposite parties, but the same were not presented with malafide intention, although there was sufficient amount in the bank. Thereafter, on repeated visits, the complainant has been only informed that the plot allotted to him has been cancelled, but no written communication has been received till date.
5. The unilateral and arbitrary act of the opposite parties, cancelling the plot in favour of the complainant without any written communication or reasons, amounts to deficiency in service and Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 4 unfair trade practice. The complainant has been deprived of the property for which he paid more than Rs.23.00 lacs and his purpose stands defeated. The complainant suffered lot of mental and physical harassment. A legal notice was sent, but no reply was given.
6. It was prayed that the complaint may be allowed and the complainant be held entitled for possession of one residential plot measuring 250 sq.yds. in TDI township at Sector-112, situated near Balongi on Chandigarh-Kharar Road and opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25.00 lac for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
7. In the written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties, preliminary objections were taken that the present complaint is based on mis-representation and concealment of true facts and is liable to be dismissed. No allotment letter with regard to the plot in question was issued in favour of the complainant and the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. The Commission has no territorial jurisdiction and no cause of action has accrued to the complainant. The complaint is misconceived, as the plot cannot be termed as goods under the Act. The opposite party company is engaged in the business of housing construction and development of mega township for the last more than two decades and it has developed various townships in the cities of Agra, Muradabad, Kundli, Gurgaon, Sonepat, Panipat, New Delhi, etc. One Rahul Mendiratta, through brokers M/s Sikand Properties, got himself registered for an offer of allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 sq.yds. in the future township project of the opposite party company and he made deposit of Rs.3.00 lacs towards registration of Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 5 application which was to be adjusted at the time of offer of allotment of residential plot.
8. The Govt. of Punjab, with a view to attract new investment in the State, formulated Industrial Policy-2013. Housing and Urban Development were also made the subject of the said policy. The opposite party company submitted the proposal to develop an area of 160 acres with an investment of more than Rs.266.50 crores and the same was accepted and after acceptance, the application of Sh. Rahul Mendiratta was considered along with others and an offer of allotment was made to Sh. Rahul Mendiratta and he was asked to deposit Rs.1,87,500/- in case the said offer was acceptable to him. Sh. Rahul Mendiratta deposited Rs.1,87,500/- on 03.05.2008 for getting the priority of allotment of residential plot in the Mega Housing Project of the opposite party company at Mohali. While accepting the deposit of Rs.1,87,500/-, he was reminded to follow the schedule of payment strictly as prescribed in the application.
9. Sh. Rahul Mendiratta, in fact, has made an investment to earn premium over his registration deposit rights and he sold the same to the complainant and submitted an application for transfer of his right in favour of the complainant. The complainant made the payment of Rs.1.00 lac towards transfer charges on 18.07.2008 and the opposite party company effected the transfer with regard to the rights of Sh. Rahul Mendiratta in favour of the complainant. After registration, the complainant made another payment of Rs.2,06,250/- in order to follow the payment schedule and a receipt was issued.
10. The complainant was not having sufficient funds in his account to follow the payment schedule and he also wanted to earn Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 6 premium over his registration rights which he could not earn due to slump in the Real Estate Market. The complainant failed to follow the payment schedule and did not make the payments timely. He was asked telephonically, but he did not turn up. The opposite party was left with no alternative, but to cancel his registration on 06.08.2009 and a letter on 06.08.2009 with regard to cancellation of the registration of the complainant was written. He was asked to surrender the original receipts so that the amount deposited could be refunded as per the policy. The complainant has concealed all these facts and has mis-represented the facts. The present complaint is not maintainable, as he has no challenged the cancellation letter dated 06.08.2009 and the complaint is time barred.
11. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has levelled baseless allegations. Even M/s Nirgun Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., through whom the complainant has purchased the rights of Sh. Rahul Mendiratta, has not been impleaded as party. Similar other pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
12. The complainant in support of his version tendered his own affidavit Ex.C-A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13.
13. The opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Sanyam Dudeja, Authorized Signatory as Ex.R-A along with documents Ex.R- 1 to Ex.R-5.
14. We have heard & considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record placed on the file.
Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 7
15. The complainant purchased the rights in the plot from Sh. Rahul Mendiratta and paid the transfer fee of Rs.1.00 lac and his name was entered as transferee. Thereafter, he paid Rs.2,06,250/- and he was asked for possession of the plot and he was allotted property no.703. He was called to take the possession and he issued three cheques of Rs.11,81,250/- and in all, paid Rs.16.25 lacs which was the total cost, but the opposite parties failed to allot any plot and to deliver the possession. A legal notice dated 25.06.2012 was served, but the opposite parties did not file any reply. The opposite parties have taken the plea that the allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 06.08.2009, but there is no communication. The complainant has not defaulted in making the payments as the payment plan was to be issued after the date of launch, but till date no date of launch has been communicated and the cancellation was done without any notice. There is no acknowledgement of the receipt of the letter. The said cancellation letter was never sent through registered post as per the certificate Ex.C-10 of the Postal Department. Even no date of launch was mentioned in the written statement and the complainant has been deprived of the plot and to raise construction of the house, although he has paid the entire amount of Rs.16.25 lacs. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Nidhi Jain", Revision Petition No.1980 of 2013, decided on 5th July, 2013, upheld the order of the District Forum and the State Commission, allowing the interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amount, and dismissed the revision with punitive costs of Rs.1.00 lacs.
16. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2012 8 Rs.16.25 lacs (Rupees Sixteen Lacs & Twenty Five Thousand), which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
17. The entire payment shall be made by the opposite parties within 45 days after the receipt of copy of the order.
18. The arguments in this complaint were heard on 03.12.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member December 13, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)