State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Asha Grover vs Bcl Homes Limited on 9 January, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019
Date of institution : 25.10.2019
Date of decision : 09.01.2020
Asha Grover W/o Sh. Gopal Krishan Grover, resident of House No.G-
064, Phase-II, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Ranipur Haridwar Uttrakhand.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura (Adjoining Sector-
20, Panchkula) NAC, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through
its Director Sh. Baldev Bansal.
2. Sh. Baldev Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
3. Sh. Gopal Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
Email of OPs: [email protected] and chinargroup.com
....Opposite Parties
2) Consumer Complaint No.785 of 2019
Date of institution : 25.10.2019
Date of decision : 09.01.2020
1. Sh. Ajaib Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of Village and
Post Office Kakkar Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.
2. Sh. Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of Village
and Post Office Kakkar Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District
Ambala.
....Complainants
Versus
1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura (Adjoining Sector-
20, Panchkula) NAC, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through
its Director Sh. Baldev Bansal.
2. Sh. Baldev Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
3. Sh. Gopal Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
Email of OPs: [email protected] and chinargroup.com
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 2
3) Consumer Complaint No.786 of 2019
Date of institution : 25.10.2019
Date of decision : 09.01.2020
Shashi Bala W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of Village and Post
Office Kakkar Majra, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura (Adjoining Sector-
20, Panchkula) NAC, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through
its Director Sh. Baldev Bansal.
2. Sh. Baldev Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
3. Sh. Gopal Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
Email of OPs: [email protected] and chinargroup.com
....Opposite Parties
4) Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2019
Date of institution : 25.10.2019
Date of decision : 09.01.2020
Neha Singla D/o Sh. Vijay Singla Aged, resident of House No.1427,
Sector-22-B, Chandigarh.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura (Adjoining Sector-
20, Panchkula) NAC, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through
its Director Sh. Baldev Bansal.
2. Sh. Baldev Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
3. Sh. Gopal Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
Email of OPs: [email protected] and chinargroup.com
....Opposite Parties
AND
5) Consumer Complaint No.790 of 2019
Date of institution : 25.10.2019
Date of decision : 09.01.2020
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 3
Aarti Tomar W/o Sh. Rajeev Tomar, resident of House No.1199,
Sector-11, Panchkula.
....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura (Adjoining Sector-
20, Panchkula) NAC, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab, through
its Director Sh. Baldev Bansal.
2. Sh. Baldev Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
3. Sh. Gopal Bansal Authorized Signatory/Director of M/s BCL
Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector-7, Panchkula.
Email of OPs: [email protected] and chinargroup.com
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate For the opposite parties : Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER :
This order will dispose of the above mentioned five Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), as the facts and the questions of law involved in these complaints are the same. The facts of the complaints are verbatim and all the complaints have been filed against the same opposite parties by the complainants. The Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 4 facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited.
Facts of the Complaint
2. The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking following directions to the opposite parties (in short the "OPs):
i) to hand over the legal physical possession complete in all regard of the shop no.275, having an area 12x20 sq. feet, if OPs are not in a position to hand over the legal physical possession of the shop in question then to refund the entire amount of Rs.2,80,000/- paid to them alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount i.e. 31.08.2011 till the date of its realization ;
ii) to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony; and
iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as litigation expenses;
3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that OPs advertised a project under the name and style of "BCL Homes Limited"
situated at Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.
The complainant was convinced by OP by showing rosy picture to purchase a shop in above project. On relying upon the assurances of OPs, she booked a shop no.275, having an area 12x20 sq. feet on 31.08.2011 in above project by investing her hard earned money and saving of a life time for personal use to earn her livelihood. She paid a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as registration amount, vide receipt no.2000 Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 5 dated 31.08.2011. The total cost of the shop was settled as Rs.24 lakhs and remaining amount of Rs.21,20,000/- was payable at the time of possession of shop. After receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- neither OPs issued any allotment letter to her with regard to shop in question nor started any construction at the site. In the year 2014, OPs had issued letter dated 05.03.2014 to her acknowledging the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- as registration of above shop and it was specified that the balance amount of Rs.21,30,000/- would be payable on possession of the shop. In the month of August 2018, the complainant approached OP in this regard and OP told her that construction has not been started. Despite various visits and requests, OPs failed to issue the allotment letter and also to deliver the physical possession of the shop till date. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
Defence of Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply by taking various preliminary objection like that the present complaint is barred by limitation, as complainant claimed for refund and relied upon last receipt dated 31.08.2011, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 24.10.2019. The complainant has not filed any application under Section 24-A of the Act for seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as per Consumer Protection Act, as she is a speculative Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 6 person, who had invested in OPs project just for gain and she has sought for refund of the deposited amount because of fall in property prices. She has filed this complaint just to extract money from OPs. No cause of action has arisen at Punjab, as the receipts have been issued at Panchkula. No cause of action has arisen in favour of complainant to file the present complaint. The present complaint is an abuse of the process of law. She has failed to plead the mandatory ingredients for bringing the complaint under the preview of consumer dispute. The complainant has failed to plead that the shop in question was purchased for her own use. The answering OPs have been prevented from offering the possession of the fully developed project on account of force majeure circumstances beyond their control. After the issuance of the letter of allotment there has been increase in the cost of construction to the extent of 30% as a result of which the entire economics of the project has been disturbed. The work at the site is going on and there is every likelihood that OPs would be in position to offer the possession by March 2020. The electricity work is complete now. The water is available from the ground floors the sewerage is ready. There are total 14 towers having 13 floors each, which are complete. The road work inside the project is complete. The security guards have been deployed. The finishing work, such as flooring, wood work, kitchen, bathroom, pain and electricity work, is under way. The answering OPs approached Canara Bank for partly funding the project and bank had sanctioned the term loan of Rs.32 crores. Thus, share of the bank in total cost of project of Rs.111.95 + Rs.30.50 + 142.45 Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 7 crores was merely 22.46% and major contribution was by the answering OP viz. 44.28%, flat buyers 33.26%. The OPs through letter dated 18.01.2014 had requested the Bank to extend fresh loan of Rs.35 crores for help in completing the remaining work. Later on, they requested to increase the amount to Rs.38 crores, but Bank sanctioned the meagre loan of Rs.10.85 crores only and on the other hand it had asked OP-company to first arrange Rs.38.18 crores from other sources. Bank had issued the possession notice dated 28.10.2015. Consequently, instead of helping the project, in alleviating its financial problems, Bank had proceeded to take action under SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice dated 14.07.2015, which was per se defunct and against the concerning law and Rules. In this regard, OPs had sought to explain to the flat buyers that still the project could be completed, if they took the pragmatic stance. Several meetings with the flat buyers were held at the site office of OPs. Flat buyers had agreed to such a way out. As such, the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.4,55,000/- towards balance amount alongwith interest on the delayed payment to the tune of Rs.14,061/- and Rs.5,186/- on account of interest of the delayed payment of service tax. But complainant with other flat buyers had breached the promises. On merits, OPs denied the other averments of complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Evidence of the Parties
5. To prove her claim, the complainant filed her affidavit along with documents i.e. Ex.P-1 copy of receipt dated 31.08.2011, Ex.P-2 Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 8 copy of letter dated 05.03.2014 regarding registration of shop no.275 of complainant and Ex.P-3 copy of judgment dated 11.06.2019 passed by this State Commission.
6. OPs filed affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director only. Contentions of the Parties
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that she booked shop no.275, measuring 12x20 square feet on 31.08.2011 in the above project of OPs for personal use to earn her livelihood. The basic sale price of the shop was to the tune of Rs.24,00,000/-. She paid Rs.2,80,000/- to OPs as registration amount, vide Ex.P-1 and the balance amount was to be payable at the time of possession of shop. Letter dated 05.03.2014, Ex.P-2 was issued to complainant by OPs for registration of above shop. The complainant contacted OPs many times for allotment letter, execution of shop buyers agreement and possession of the shop in question, which was booked in 2011, but OPs delayed the matter on one pretest or another. The possession of the allotted shop was to be handed over to the complainant by OPs within two years of the booking. Despite assurance, OPs have not delivered the possession of the shop to complainant. Averring on similar lines, as pleaded in complaint, counsel for complainant prayed for acceptance of complaint.
9. On the other hand, counsel for OPs argued that complaint is barred by limitation as complainant deposited the last payment on Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 9 31.08.2011, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 25.10.2019. The complainant has failed to plead the mandatory ingredients for bringing the complaint under the purview of a consumer dispute and enabling this Commission to adjudicate upon the present complaint. The complainant is an investor and invested her amount in the said project for speculative purposes and she does not fall under the definition of consumer. Due to slump in the real estate market, complainant wanted refund of her deposited amount. There has been increase in the cost of construction to the extent of 30%, due to that OPs failed to develop the project in time. The development work at the site is going on and there is every likelihood that OP would be in position to offer the possession by March 2020. Counsel for OPs further contended that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Averring on similar lines, as pleaded in written reply, counsel for OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Consideration of Contentions
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The complainant relied upon Ex.P-1, copy of receipt dated 31.08.2011 for payment of Rs.2,80,000/-, Ex.P-2 copy of letter dated 05.03.2014 regarding registration of shop no.275 of complainant and Ex.P-3 copy of judgment dated 11.06.2019 passed by this State Commission granting liberty to complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action with better particulars in accordance with law.
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 10
12. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that the physical possession of the shop, in question, was to be delivered within two years of the booking, but the same was not delivered to her by OPs, hence she requested for physical possession of the said flat complete in all respect with all facilities and amenities. She further requested for interest @18% on the deposited amount from the date of deposits till the date of handing over the possession. We have perused the above referred evidence of complainant. There is no rebuttal evidence on the record led by OPs, except one affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of OPs.
13. First of all, we would like to dispose of the preliminary objections raised by OPs that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' as she purchased the shop for speculative purposes and failed to plead the mandatory ingredients for bringing the complaint under the purview of a 'consumer dispute'. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of OPs to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale/purchase of property for commercial purpose and simple assertion in this regard in the reply of the OPs is not sufficient to prove this fact. Hon'ble National Commission in "M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS", First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in "KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS"
Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 11 complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. Even the complainant specifically pleaded in para no.21 of the complaint that shop in question was bought for personal use to earn her livelihood for monetary consideration. Accordingly, the above said objection/contention of the OPs is rejected and the complainant is held to be 'consumer', under the Act.
14. The next objection of OPs is that complaint is barred by limitation. Hon'ble National Commission in "Navin Sharma (Dr.) & others V. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." 2016(2) CLT 457 has held that unless and until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action. In view of this, we are of the opinion that till the complete and effective possession of the shop is not delivered, the complainant has the continuous cause of action. As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation. We reject this contention of OPs as well.
15. The further objection of OPs is that the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.4,55,000/- towards balance amount alongwith interest on the delayed payment to the tune of Rs.14,061/- and Rs.5,186/- on account of interest of the delayed payment of service tax. In this regard, OPs have not produced on record any cogent Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 12 evidence that complainant had agreed for that by signing any agreement without delivery of shop in question. The complainant is under no obligation to pay any advance payments without delivery of possession of the shop in question. Hence, this contention of OPs is also rejected.
16. The grievance of complainant is that the project of OPs is incomplete and she has prayed for delivery of possession of the shop in question complete in all respect. In written reply OPs stated that their project is complete and some minor work is under way. In this case, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within two years from the date of booking i.e. 31.08.2011, as pleaded by complainant in para no.5 & 6 of the complaint. OPs have not denied this fact in their written reply. This date of delivery of possession expired on 31.08.2013. But still OPs are saying that they are ready to deliver the possession by March 2020 to complainant. The complainant cannot be made to wait forever for seeking possession. As such, OPs are held to be deficient in service on this point.
17. In the instant complaint, the complainant has prayed for delivery of possession complete in all respect and also for interest @18% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of deposits till actual date of handing over the possession for delayed period of delivery in possession. Since, the complainant prayed for delivery of possession, which expired on 31.08.2013 in this case, as discussed above. As such, OPs are liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- (Ex.P-1) from the date of deposit Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 13 i.e. 31.08.2011 till the actual date of delivery of physical possession is given on account of deficiency in service.
18. After going through the record of the case and contentions of parties, we are of the view that OPs are deficient in service, as they failed to fulfill their part in completing the project in time and to offer the possession of the shop to complainant, despite giving assurances to her. OPs failed to comply with the various provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA").
19. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the OPs were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such project is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days' notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a project, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a project. However, they failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.
20. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, OPs were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the project, but they failed to produce on record any such valid permission. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.
21. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 14 amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats/commercial space/unit, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, OPs also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
22. As per Rule 17 of the "Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."
23. In view of above discussion, we hold that OPs are liable to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate, subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainants, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant. Besides this, the complainant are also entitled to suitable litigation expenses and compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by her.
24. Sequel to the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs:
i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 15 Certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainant, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;
ii) to pay compensation in shape of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from 31.08.2013 till the date of delivery of possession complete in all respect, as ordered above;
iii) to pay composite amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
In case, the OPs fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
(i) refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- along with compensation in shape of interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA.
(ii) pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.785 of 2019
25. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.785 of 2019 (Ajaib Singh & another vs. M/s BCL Homes & other), the complainants agreed to purchase shop no.238, having an area 12x20 square feet on 04.08.2011 for a total price of Rs.24,00,000/-, in their above said project. The complainants paid a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs, vide receipt Ex.P-1. However, the OPs failed to raise any construction at the site. Hence, the complainants sought possession of the unit. In case of failure to deliver the possession of shop, Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 16 complainants sought refund of their deposited amount with interest @18% per annum; compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
26. In this complaint, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply on the similar lines as raised by them in written reply filed in main complaint no.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited in their defence.
27. The complainants tendered their joint affidavit along with documents i.e. receipt Ex.P-1 and order of this Commission Ex.P-2. On the other hand, OPs filed only affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of OPs.
28. As per receipt dated 04.08.2011, Ex.P-1, complainants deposited Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs.
29. Learned counsel for the parties argued on the same lines as in "Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited" (supra).
30. In view of above as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited, this Consumer Complaint No.785 of 2019 (Ajaib Singh & another vs. M/s BCL Homes & others) is accepted and the following directions are issued to the OPs:
i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainants, without any Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 17 interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants;
ii) to pay compensation in shape of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from 04.08.2013 till the date of delivery of possession complete in all respect, as ordered above;
iii) to pay composite amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
In case, the OPs fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
(i) refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- along with compensation in shape of interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA.
(ii) pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.786 of 2019
31. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.786 of 2019 (Shashi Bala vs. M/s BCL Homes & other), the complainant agreed to purchase shop no.238, having an area 12x20 square feet on 01.08.2011 for a total price of Rs.24,00,000/-, in their above said project. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs, vide receipt Ex.P-1. However, the OPs failed to raise any construction at the site. Hence, the complainant sought possession of the unit. In case of failure to deliver the possession of shop, complainant sought refund of her deposited amount with interest @18% per annum; compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 18
32. In this complaint, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply on the similar lines as raised by them in written reply filed in main complaint no.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited in their defence.
33. The complainant tendered affidavit along with documents Ex.P-1 to P-3. On the other hand, OPs filed only affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of OPs.
34. As per receipt dated 01.08.2011, Ex.P-1, complainant deposited Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs.
35. Learned counsel for the parties argued on the same lines as in "Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited" (supra).
36. In view of above as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited, this Consumer Complaint No.786 of 2019 (Shashi Bala vs. M/s BCL Homes & others) is accepted and the following directions are issued to the OPs:
i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainant, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;
ii) to pay compensation in shape of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from 01.08.2013 till the date of delivery of possession complete in all respect, as ordered above;Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 19
iii) to pay composite amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
In case, the OPs fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
(i) refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- along with compensation in shape of interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA.
(ii) pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2019
37. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2019 (Neha Singla vs. M/s BCL Homes & others), the complainant agreed to purchase shop no.233, having an area 12x20 square feet on 18.08.2011 for a total price of Rs.24,00,000/-, in their above said project. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- with the OPs, vide receipt Ex.P-1. However, the OPs failed to raise any construction at the site. Hence, the complainant sought possession of the unit. In case of failure to deliver the possession of shop, complainant sought refund of her deposited amount with interest @18% per annum; compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
38. In this complaint, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply on the similar lines as raised by them in written reply filed in main complaint no.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited in their defence.
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 20
39. The complainant tendered affidavit along with documents Ex.P-1 to P-3. On the other hand, OPs filed only affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of OPs.
40. As per receipt dated 18.08.2011, Ex.P-1, complainant deposited Rs.2,70,000/- with the OPs.
41. Learned counsel for the parties argued on the same lines as in "Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited" (supra).
42. In view of above as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited, this Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2019 (Neha Singla vs. M/s BCL Homes & others) is accepted and the following directions are issued to the OPs:
i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainant, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;
ii) to pay compensation in shape of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from 18.08.2013 till the date of delivery of possession complete in all respect, as ordered above;
iii) to pay composite amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
In case, the OPs fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 21
(i) refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- along with compensation in shape of interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA.
(ii) pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.790 of 2019
43. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.790 of 2019 (Aarti Tomar vs. M/s BCL Homes & others), the complainant agreed to purchase shop no.273, having an area 12x20 square feet on 14.08.2011 for a total price of Rs.24,00,000/-, in their above said project. The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs, vide receipt Ex.P-1. However, the OPs failed to raise any construction at the site. Hence, the complainant sought possession of the unit. In case of failure to deliver the possession of shop, complainant sought refund of her deposited amount with interest @18% per annum; compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
44. In this complaint, OPs appeared and filed joint written reply on the similar lines as raised by them in written reply filed in main complaint no.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited in their defence.
45. The complainant tendered affidavit along with documents Ex.P-1 to P-2. On the other hand, OPs filed only affidavit of Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of OPs.
Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 22
46. As receipt dated 14.08.2011, Ex.P-1, complainant deposited Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs.
47. Learned counsel for the parties argued on the same lines as in "Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited" (supra).
48. In view of above as well as the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 titled as Asha Grover Vs. M/s BCL Homes Limited, this Consumer Complaint No.790 of 2019 (Aarti Tomar vs. M/s BCL Homes & others) is accepted and the following directions are issued to the OPs:
i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and subject to payment of balance sale consideration by complainant, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;
ii) to pay compensation in shape of interest @9% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from 14.08.2013 till the date of delivery of possession complete in all respect, as ordered above;
iii) to pay composite amount of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
In case, the OPs fail to comply the directions, as ordered above, then in the alternative, they shall:
(i) refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,80,000/- along with compensation in shape of interest @12% per annum from Consumer Complaint No.783 of 2019 23 the date of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA.
(ii) pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental harassment as well as towards litigation expenses.
49. The OPs shall comply with the orders passed in all the complaints within 60 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 09, 2020.
MM