State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harmanpreet Singh vs Mariners Buildcon India Ltd. on 5 December, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016
Date of Institution : 25.10.2016
Date of Reserve : 27.11.2017
Date of Decision : 05.12.2017
Mr. Harmanpreet Singh son of Sh. Ranjit Singh, resident of House
No. 483, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Mariners Buildcon India Limited, SCO No. 120-121,First
Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009, through its
Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Signatory/ Representative.
2. Mariners Buildcon India Limited, 1509-1511, 15th Floor, Ansal
Tower, 38 Nehru Place, New Delhi 110019, through its Chairman/
Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized Signatory/ Representative.
....Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. B.S. Kalsi, Advocate
For the opposite parties: Ex.-parte.
Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016 2
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that the complainant intended to purchase a built-up Villa in the project of Ops i.e. Mohali Oceanic. As per the brochure issued by the Ops, it was represented that the project will be outfitted with power backup, malls, schools, hospitals, green parks etc. with provision of various lavish facilities and accordingly, on 28.10.2009, the complainant moved an application for purchase of independent Villa measuring 1850 sq. feet exclusively for residential purposes and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 28.10.2009. The Ops on 6.5.2010 demanded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, which were paid vide cheques dated 26.5.2010 and 4.6.2010. Again vide letter dated 13.12.2010, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was demanded, which was paid vide cheque dated 5.8.2011. Against the demand dated 4.7.2011, the complainant had paid Rs. 7 Lacs vide cheque dated 20.1.2011. The complainant made number of requests to the Ops to get executed the buyer's agreement but to no avail. Otherwise, under the law, once they had received 25% of the sale price, they were bound to execute the buyer's agreement. Various telephonic calls and meetings were held between the parties and on 2.5.2013 a letter was issued by Ops to make further payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in which there was Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016 3 a reference of one Bajwa Developers but the complainant had no privity of contract with Bajwa Developers. Upto 12.8.2013, the complainant had already made a payment of Rs. 24 Lacs towards the Villa but no buyer's agreement was executed. On 14.6.2013, one Villa measuring 1850 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainant for a total sum of Rs. 53 Lacs. Then an email dated 5.11.2014 was received from the Ops that the project will start by January, 2015. Despite undertaking, no construction work starts by the Ops and they had been receiving the payments. The complainant is not hopeful of any Villa from the Ops and he has completely lost faith with the Ops, therefore, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, complaint has been filed against the Ops for refund of Rs. 24 Lacs alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from various dates of deposit till payment; pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs for causing mental agony, physical harassment and mental loss and Rs. 1 Lac as cost of litigation.
2. Various notices of the complaint were issued but Ops not served and ultimately, it was served through 'publication notice' in Hindustan Times dated 25.7.2017 but none appeared on behalf of the Ops, therefore, Ops were proceeded ex-parte.
3. In the ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. C-A and documents Exs. C-1 to C-16.
4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant Sh. B.S. Kalsi, Advocate whereas Op Nos. 1 & 2 are ex-parte and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the record. Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016 4
5. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that apart from the evidence of the complainant in the form of affidavit Ex. C-A, he has placed on the record the brochure of the Ops 'Mohali Oceanic' Ex. C-1 showing the various features of the project, Ex. C-2 is application for registration for Company's Upcoming Expandable Villas Project and alongwith that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid on 28.10.2009 vide cheque Ex. C-3. Vide letter dated 6.5.2010 Ex. C-4, Ops demanded a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-, which was paid vide cheque dated 26.5.2010 of Rs. 3 Lakhs Ex. C-5 and cheque dated 4.6.2010 of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the name of Ops Ex. C-5/A. Then another letter dated 13.12.2010 was received from the Ops vide which a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- towards further installment was demanded, which was paid vide cheque dated 5.8.2011 Ex. C-7. Then another letter dated 4.7.2011 was received from the Ops vide which a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs was demanded, which was paid vide cheque Ex. C-9. Vide another letter dated 2.5.2013 Ex. C-10, another demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was demanded, which was paid vide cheque dated 12.8.2013 Ex. C-11. In this way, a sum of Rs. 24 Lakhs was paid by the complainant to the Ops and then on 14.6.2013 Ex. C-12 confirmation of allotment letter of one expandable Villa was received on the area of 300 sq. yards with construction on 1850 sq. ft. at B.S.P. of Rs. 53 Lacs. Then H.S. Anand, M.D. of the Ops sent an email dated 18.9.2014 stating that things will be in place very shortly. Vide another email dated 5.11.2014 Ex. C-14, it was stated that they shall start moving positively in the coming days. The Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016 5 project shall start in earnest by December, 2014 (end to Mid Jan 2015). Then a legal notice dated 2.12.2014 was issued by the complainant to the Ops but no response. There is no rebuttal to the pleadings and evidence brought on the record by the complainant.
6. Firstly, there is violation of PAPRA, which amounts to unfair trade practice because the Ops have not come with any proposal that they had the land with them or proper sanctions from the Competent Authority mentioned under PAPRA before launching the project. They received Rs. 24 Lacs out of Rs. 53 Lacs before they issued the allotment letter, otherwise, after receiving 25% of the price of the Villa, they were required to enter into an agreement but no such agreement was executed by the Ops and no outer date was given by which they will deliver the possession of Villa. It amounts to unfair trade practice as they did not have any property to develop the project and they fleeced the complainant and other similarly placed persons to part their hard earned money to the Ops without any project insight. It was just a brochure, which does not give the details of the property, where it will be set up. In the absence of any rebuttal from the side of Ops, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the complainant. Similarly other complaints have already been allowed by this Commission against the Ops i.e. Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 2016 "Anil Kumar Chandel versus Mariners Buildcon India Limited & Others" decided on 16.3.2017, Consumer Complaint No. 368 of 2016 "Ankit Sood versus Mariners Buildcon India Limited & Another" decided on 20.7.2017 and Consumer Complaint No. 340 Consumer Complaint No. 342 of 2016 6 of 2016 "Vijay Saklani & Anr. Versus Mariners Buildcon India Limited & Others", decided on 7.11.2017.
7. Seeing no rebuttal of the contentions as raised by the counsel for the complainant and that it being a covered matter, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops as under:-
(i) refund a sum of Rs. 24 lacs alongwith interest @ 11% from the date of deposit till payment;
(ii) pay Rs. 2 Lakhs on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to receive the payment and launch the project without proper approvals from the Competent Authority i.e. CLU from the PUDA and Town and Gram Planning Department, Punjab or licence from the GMADA, layout plans or other certificates as provided under the PAPRA; and
(iii) Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
9. Order be communicated the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER December 05, 2017.
as