State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... on 10 July, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015
Date of institution : 13.04.2015
Date of decision : 10.07.2017
Deepak Kumar s/o Shri Nakli Ram, H.No.210/1, Sector 44-A,
Chandigarh-47.
......Complainant
Versus
1.Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office, 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001 through its Chairman/Authorized Signatory.
2. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 51-52, Sector 118, (Chandigarh-Kharar Road, NH-21), TDI City, Mohali through its Authorized Signatory/Regional Manager/Branch Manager.
........Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for Shri S.K. Monga, Advocate.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
The complainant, Deepak Kumar, has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-
i) to give physical possession of the plot or if they are not in a position to give physical possession of plot as allotted, then opposite parties be directed to allot new plot at good location and in good condition at TDI City, Sector 118, Mohali, Punjab at same price and same size on which Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 2 the complainant had purchased the plot from opposite parties on 27.6.2005 within two months from the filing of present complaint;
ii) to pay 18% interest on ₹15,50,000/- (on account of deposit by the complainant for the plot) from the date of deposit till date of actual delivery of actual possession of above mentioned plot;
iii) to provide basic amenities at the site within 2 months from filing of present complaint;
iv) to pay ₹10,00,000/- on account of increase in cost of construction in last three years;
v) to pay ₹2,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony to the complainant; and
vi) to pay ₹33,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the opposite parties launched a new scheme for providing plots at their township TDI City Mohali, Punjab on Chandigarh-Kharar Road (NH-21) and the price of the plot for 250 square yards was fixed as ₹6,500/- per square yard i.e. ₹16,25,000/-. The EDC was fixed at ₹1,650/- per square yard i.e. ₹4,12,500/- and as such, the total price of the plot was fixed at ₹20,37,500/-. The complainant was interested in purchasing the plot at the site of the opposite parties for self-living and enquired about the project and requisite approvals from the opposite parties. On the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant booked one plot measuring 250 square yards and paid Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 3 ₹3,00,000/- as advance on 28.6.2005. Thereafter the complainant paid ₹1,87,500/- to the opposite parties on 2.11.2006. On 7.1.2008 the complainant received a letter from the opposite parties that their Mega Project TDI City Mohali, Punjab on Chandigarh-Kharar Road (NH-21) had been approved and the development of the site after getting approval from concerned authorities had started at full swing. The complainant was informed that the basic amenities would be provided soon and physical possession of the plot would be given by June 2009. Thereafter Plot No.501 in TDI City, Mohali, Kharar Road, Punjab was allotted by the opposite parties to the complainant, vide letter of allotment dated 28.5.2008. The complainant received letter dated 8.7.2008 from opposite parties to pay another sum of ₹3,68,750/- towards 40% of sale consideration and 50% of EDC and the complainant duly deposited the same on 22.7.2008. Thereafter opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit sum of ₹6,93,750/-, vide letter dated 30.10.2008 and the same was deposited by the complainant on 29.11.2008. In all the complainant made the payment of ₹15,50,000/ to the opposite parties out of the total price of the plot i.e. ₹16,25,000/- excluding EDC till 29.11.2008. The opposite parties were required to provide physical possession of plot within 16 months from the date of launch of Scheme i.e. upto 22.5.2009 along with basic amenities but till the date of filing of the complaint neither basic amenities were provided at the site nor physical possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 4 opposite parties, the present complaint has been filed for the issuance of directions, reproduced above.
3. No written statement was filed by the opposite parties despite opportunity having been given to them.
4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CA and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18. On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of their authorized signatory, Rohit Gogia as Ex.OPA and documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant and the evidence produced by both the sides. I have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the sides.
6. At the outset, it may be pointed out that during the course of proceedings the opposite parties were ready to allot alternative plot to the complainant and offered three such plots bearing Nos.5031, 5075 and 5108 on 2.9.2015. However, learned counsel for the complainant requested adjournment to enable the complainant to visit the location and then to make the choice of the alternative plot. On 12.10.2015 learned counsel for the complainant stated that the alternative plots offered by the opposite parties were not acceptable to the complainant. Thereafter on 26.2.2016 this Commission after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides passed the following order:-
"Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 5 For the opposite parties: Shri Aman Sharma, Advocate. Heard.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the complainant in the course of arguments that the original plot bearing No.501 so allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties was situated in Sector 118 and plot No.451, which was given in the alternative, was also situated in that Sector and, as such, in case the offer of the opposite parties is for the alternative plot on the plea that the above said plot has been deleted from its project, then the complainant is entitled for a plot in Sector 118 itself. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the counsel for the opposite parties that no such plot in Sector 118 is available with the opposite parties as all those plots stand allotted. The question arises whether the persons who had applied subsequent to the complainant could have been allotted plots in that Sector before the allotment of the alternative plot to the complainant in the same Sector. In order to determine that question the following record is relevant:
(i) The details of the persons who were allotted plots in Sector 118 and the dates on which those applicants had given the applications for the allotment of the plots.
(ii) The dates on which those plots were allotted to them and whether they had paid the total sale price of their respective plots.Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 6
Counsel for the opposite parties is directed to produce that record before this Commission on the next date.
Now, to come up for arguments on 7.4.2016."
Thereafter the case was adjourned to different dates for the production of the records as per the above reproduced order. On 9.3.2017 this Commission passed the following order:-
"Present:
For the complainant : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Shri S.K. Monga, Advocate. Cost of Rs.500/- deposited by the OPs.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that he will produce the entire record of Sector 118, TDI City, Mohali as directed by this Commission on 26.2.2016. In case of failure, Chairman/Managing Director should appear on the next date of hearing with the original record whereby the plot to the complainant was sanctioned and subsequent deletion record by the competent authority.
To come up on 11.4.2017 for arguments."
On 11.4.2017 the following order was passed by this Commission:-
"Present:
For the complainant :Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For the opposite parties :Shri S.K. Monga, Advocate. Before lunch the matter was taken up. Learned counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that he will produce the original record after the lunch. Now it is 2:30 P.M. No one has turned up. In view of this, for procuring the presence of Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 7 the Director/Chairman as well as the original records, let bailable warrants be issued against Shri Ravinder Kumar Taneja, active Director of OPs in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount for 04.05.2017.
At this stage, Shri S.K. Monga, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties has appeared. He has not produced the original record as per the order. However, he has given a typed list. The same is taken on record. It appears that the opposite parties are intentionally avoiding the production of record and also not complying with the order passed by this Commission on 26.2.2016. More than one year has lapsed. For such a chronic defaulter, there is no option except to issue Bailable Warrants.
At the stage, learned counsel for the opposite parties states that they are ready to offer flat in the same project. It appears that this offer is in view of the above order. However, counsel for the complainant states that this offer is only acceptable if it is given in the same Sector."
On 4.5.2017 the following order has been passed by this Commission:-
"Present:
For the complainant :Shri Munish Goel, Advocate. For opposite parties : Shri S.K. Monga, Advocate. In pursuance of order dated 11.4.2017, Shri Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Chairman of the Company, is present in this Commission along with other staff members and has brought the file of all the applicants who had applied for allotment in Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 8 Sector 118 along with approved site plans by the Country and Town Planning Department of Punjab. It has been informed that Plot No.501 and the alternative Plot No.451 are not available. Earlier also, this Commission, vide order dated 2.9.2015, had given an offer to select a plot out of other Plots No.5031, 5075 and 5108. But till date this Commission has not received any reply whether any of the said plots is suitable to him.
Now, the question arises if the plot is not available, which was allegedly earlier allotted to the complainant, what should be the alternative. In our view, first option can be, to select another plot in the same sector/township; second possibility is, refund of the amount deposited with suitable interest and appropriate orders including compensation etc. In view of this, one another option is given to the complainant that the complainant would be at liberty to survey the area where the township is situated and make suggestion if any vacant plot is available in the area for allotment of plot equal in size. In the meantime, the parties shall explore the possibility of settlement out of the Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant is insisting that he wants a plot in Sector 118. Then it is for the complainant to visit that Sector to see if any vacant plot is available and then this Commission can look into the possibility of allotment of that plot. The complainant to file a specific affidavit that he has Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 9 visited Sector-118 and any vacant plot is available for allotment in the said Sector.
Opposite parties are directed to file specific affidavit regarding the availability of the vacant plots in Sector 118 mentioning therein specific area.
The case is adjourned to 30.05.2017 for further proceedings."
In pursuance of the order dated 4.5.2017 the opposite parties filed the affidavit of their Deputy General Manager; namely, Jatin Jain dated 26.05.2017/30.05.2017. In para no.3 thereof it has been deposed as under:-
"3. That the deponent has gone through the records of the Company and have found that there is availability of only one plot bearing No.247-B measuring 350.44 square yards in Sector-118, SAS Nagar, Mohali and apart from this no other plot of any size is available in Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali."
7. Learned counsel for the complainant after discussing with the complainant, who is also present in this Commission, submits that he is ready to accept the said plot bearing No.247-B measuring 350.44 square yards in Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali. He further submits that so far as the price of the plot upto 250 square yards is concerned, the same shall be at the rate prevalent at the time of purchasing the same and for the additional area of the plot measuring 100.44 square yards the complainant is ready to pay as per the Collector's rate which is ₹12,000/- per square yard at present in Sectors 104 onwards upto Sector 121. He further submits that the Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 10 complainant had been suffering at the hands of the opposite parties since 2005 and almost 12 years have already lapsed. He prays that adequate compensation and costs may also be granted to the complainant.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the Collector's rate is always below the market rate and at present market rate in Sector 118 is ₹20,000/- per square yard.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the Collector's rates.
10. Considering the situation regarding the availability of plots this Commission deems it fit and appropriate that Plot No.247-B measuring 350.44 square yards in Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali be allotted to the complainant. So far as the price of the plot is concerned, it would remain the same as it was originally agreed between the parties upto 250 square yards and for the additional area of the plot i.e. 100.44 square yards the same would be paid at the rate of ₹15,000/- per square yard in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
11. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to allot Plot No.247-B measuring 350.44 square yards in Sector 118, SAS Nagar, Mohali to the complainant at the rate stated above. I also award consolidated amount of ₹50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment along with misc. expenses and costs of litigation to the complainant. It is, however, made clear that if the dues of the opposite parties are pending against the complainant, Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 11 the same shall be paid by the complainant but that will not carry any interest or penal interest.
12. The price of the additional area of the plot will be paid by the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of communication, which the opposite parties will send to the complainant with regard to the amount due. The opposite parties will ensure that such a communication is issued to the complainant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. This amount will not carry interest as I have not awarded any interest and compensation for the delay in delivery of possession. The delay in delivery is not a small. It is approximately 12 years' delay in settling this dispute and the opposite parties will send a communication after deducting the sum of ₹50,000/-, which I awarded to the complainant on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment along with misc. expenses and litigation costs. It is also made clear that after the payment is made by the complainant the opposite parties will deliver the possession of the said plot with all the amenities, as agreed between the parties within 30 days.
13. This complaint is disposed of accordingly.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 10, 2017 Bansal Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2015 12