State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... vs Arvind Sharma on 19 November, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1433 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 13.08.2010.
Date of Decision: 19.11.2012.
1. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited through its Authorized
Signatory, Regd. Office at 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited, through its Authorized
Signatory, SCO 1098-99, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
3. M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited, through its Authorized
Signatory, TDI City, Mile Stone 10-11, NH-21, Chandigarh-Kharar
Road, Mohali.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Arvind Sharma S/o late Sh. Data Ram, Resident of House No.1151, Sector
46-B, Chandigarh.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
15.07.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. S.K. Monga, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. Vinod Arya, Advocate, counsel for the respondent with Sh. Arvind Sharma, in person.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 (M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited Vs Arvind Sharma) and First Appeal No.313 of 2011 (Arvind Sharma Vs M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) as both the appeal are directed against the same impugned order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 2 short "the District Forum"). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Arvind Sharma, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, on the grounds that the appellants advertized the allotment of flats in their project "TDI City", proposed to be constructed at Mohali. One Mr. Rohit Dabas paid an amount of Rs.3.50 lacs in advance against one residential flat vide receipt dated 24.04.2006. The MPF number was 10475. The proposed residential flat was to comprise 1000-1100 sq.ft. approximately. It was assured to the respondent that the allotment letter would be issued within one year from the date of the booking.
3. On 27.01.2007, said Rohit Dabas transferred the said flat in the name of the respondent. A letter dated 27.01.2006 was issued to the respondent, containing the list of documents and the respondent provided all the documents to the appellants on the same day and the appellants made the endorsement on the backside of the receipt dated 24.04.2006, showing the transfer of the flat in the name of the respondent w.e.f. 27.01.2006. On 27.01.2007, the appellants received an amount of Rs.1.70 lacs as second installment and issued receipt no. 58572 and also received an amount o Rs.5,000/- towards transfer charges and a receipt no.TC-1137 was issued. The appellants also received Rs.57,000/- as second installment and receipt dated 27.01.2007 was issued. Thereafter, the respondent remained constantly in touch with the appellants to know the status of the allotment of flat, but the appellants told that the approval of the project got delayed and the site will be shown to the respondent after approval of the project.
4. On 30.01.2008, the respondent received one letter from the appellants, asking him to pay Rs.500/- towards outstanding amount in his account and the respondent again asked for the allotment of flat, but the appellants failed to give any satisfactory reply. On 06.02.2008, the First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 3 respondent paid an amount of Rs.500/- to the appellant vide receipt dated 06.02.2008. The appellants remained silent and did not inform the respondent about the development in the project, nor the date of allotment or the status of approval of the project. The respondent was deprived of the bonafide use of his amount and he decided to get his amount refunded from the appellant and wrote a letter dated 13.03.2010 and on receiving the same, the appellants sent a letter dated 15.03.2010 to cover up their deficiency and told that the area of the flat has been increased and asked the respondent to remit an amount of Rs.2,20,085/- without informing the date of possession and the stage of construction.
5. The appellants have failed to offer the allotment of flat within the time which amounts to deficiency in service and the respondent is at liberty to withdraw the booking amount. The respondent has been harassed by not offering the flat and is entitled to compensation.
6. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to refund Rs.5,82,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
7. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complaint is based on mis-representation, wrong facts and concealment of facts. One Rohit Dabas approached the appellant company on 24.04.2006 with an application for offer of provisional allotment of a flat in Group Housing Project in the forthcoming scheme of the appellants, and he deposited Rs.3,50,000/- as registration deposit with the appellants. In the said application, said Rohit Dabas put a condition that in the event the offer of provisional allotment for residential flat is made after six months, the appellants shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% p.a. beyond six months upto the date of offer of provisional allotment. First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 4
8. The Govt. of Punjab with a view to attract new investments in the State, formulated Industrial Policy-2003 and the appellant company with a view to set up a Mega Housing Project in village Ballo Majra (Mohali), submitted its proposal to Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab to develop an area of 160 acres with an investment of over Rs.266.50 Crores. The said proposal was accepted and a Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the appellant company on 21.12.2006. After receipt of Letter of Intent, the appellants considered the application of Sh. Rohit Dabas along with others, who had got themselves registered with the appellants for offer of provisional allotment for residential flat, in the future scheme of the appellants. The appellants issued a letter dated 27.01.2007 to Sh. Rohit Dabas and made offer of provisional allotment for a residential flat in the Mega Housing Project of the appellants and on the same day i.e. 27.01.2007, Sh. Rohit Dabas submitted an application to record the respondent as his nominee in the record of the appellants and he also requested to transfer the registration deposit in favour of the nominee Sh. Arvind Sharma, respondent. The application of Sh. Rohit Dabas was considered and the account was transferred in favour of his nominee i.e. the respondent and Sh. Rohit Dabas indemnified the appellants of all charges, lien and claims against the said flat. Sh. Rohit Dabas is necessary party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The respondent is estopped by his own act and conduct to maintain the complaint and he has concealed the material facts. The Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent has no cause of action to file the complaint.
9. On merits, it was pleaded that before issuance of Letter of Intent by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, the appellants had purchased 115 acres of land apart from the agreement to sell regarding some other chunk of land in its possession. The appellants submitted an application with the Chief Town Planner, Punjab for change of Land Use (CLU) of 131 Acres of land on 06.12.2006. The said application was allowed and the CLU was First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 5 granted regarding 131.618 acres of land on 22.12.2006 and the appellants had to pay Rs.42.38 Crores to the authorities for according the aforesaid application. Thereafter, the appellants submitted a layout plan with Chief Town Planner, Punjab regarding 106 acres of land out of the aforesaid chunk. However, because of pending litigation in CWP No.18632 of 2005 titled as "Dharam Chand Vs State of Punjab", the CLUs granted to all the developers in the State of Punjab remained suspended for a year and in December, 2007, the CLU granted to the appellants was restored by the Govt. Since by that time, the appellants had purchased another chunk of land in the same area, therefore, after getting CLU of whole chunk, the appellants submitted a revised layout plan of 159 acres of land on 04.12.2008. The appellant company is in continuous process of developing the Mega Housing Project in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Policy-2003. After approval of CLU, the Chief Town Planner, Punjab has further approved the revised layout plan of 184.8 acres on 20.11.2009.
10. The appellants issued a letter dated 15.03.2010 to the respondent, informing about the process of allotment of flats as well as date of allotment for priority numbers of the flats. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, rather the respondent has failed to follow the payment schedule of the consideration money of the flat in question and in order to dispute his liability, he has filed the present complaint. The respondent is in arrears of Rs.2,20,085/-. No advertisement was ever issued by the appellants for allotment of flats. It was admitted that the respondent deposited Rs.2,32,2000/- and Rs.500/- against receipts. Other similar pleas were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
11. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
12. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 6 Forum observed that the appellants, for the first time vide letter darted 15.03.2010 Ex.R-7, made offer of allotment to the respondent. Photographs Ex.C-15 and Ex.C-15/1 to Ex.C-15/16 proved by the respondent show that absolutely no development of the project and construction of even a single flat has been made by the appellants at the site. Therefore, the respondent cannot wait for allotment and possession of the flat indefinitely. The appellants have not disclosed any time limit within which it would be able to start and complete the construction and deliver possession of flats to the applicants, including the respondent and it is deficiency in service on its part, and allowed the complaint directing the appellants to refund to the respondent a sum of Rs.5,82,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment till actual refund and pay Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses.
13. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.07.2010, the appellants have come up in the present appeal, praying for setting aside of the impugned order.
14. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant has filed cross appeal i.e. First Appeal No.313 of 2011 (Arvind Sharma Vs M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), seeking enhancement of compensation.
15. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
16. The advertisement for the allotment of the flats was made and in pursuance of that, Sh. Rohit Dabas paid Rs.3.50 lacs in advance against a residential flat vide receipt dated 24.04.2006. The allotment letter was not issued till 27.01.2007, when said Rohit Dabas transferred the said flat in the name of respondent Arvind Sharma and the appellants allowed the said transfer on receiving the transfer charges and thereafter, the respondent paid the installments, which is admitted fact. The respondent paid the entire amount as per the advertisement, but the appellants on 30.01.2008 again First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 7 demanded Rs.500/-, but on the asking of the respondent to allot the flat, no intimation was given. The version of the appellants is that CLU granted to the developers remained suspended for a year and in December, 2007, the CLU was restored to the appellants by the Govt. The appellants, admittedly, instead of developing the area already given to them, further purchased another chunk of land and sought the approval of the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, by submitting revised layout plan of 184.8 acres, which was approved on 20.11.2009.
17. The photographs placed on record Ex.C-15, Ex.C-15/1 to Ex.C- 15/16 clearly prove that no development has been carried out at the site, where the flats were to be built and were to be given to the intended allottees and instead, the appellants kept on enlarging their area with the sole motive of earning profit and enriching themselves and the respondent was left with no alternative, except to seek refund of the amount already deposited and filed the complaint in the year 2010. The appellants are neither allotting any flat, nor delivering any possession and are not willing even to refund the amount and has filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum, directing them to refund the amount of Rs.5,82,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. The only purpose and motive behind the present appeal is to further delay the payment to bonafide purchaser, who thought of taking a flat for good living, but that dream was never fulfilled. The appeal filed by the appellants is false, frivolous and deserves to be dismissed with special costs. The order of the District Forum is detailed and speaking one and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
18. There is no ground to enhance the relief already awarded by the District Forum.
19. In view of above discussion, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and the impugned order under appeal dated 15.07.2010 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld.
First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 8
20. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal and another sum of Rs.2,92,500/- vide receipt dated 24.09.2010 in compliance of the order dated September 7, 2010 passed by this Commission. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
21. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum along with costs imposed vide this order shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within 60 days of the receipt of copy of the order. First Appeal No.313 of 2011:-
22. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.1433 of 2010 (M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited Vs Arvind Sharma), the First Appeal No.313 of 2011 (Arvind Sharma Vs M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) is dismissed. No order as to costs.
23. The arguments in all these appeals were heard on 07.11.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
25. Copy of the order be placed in First Appeal No.313 of 2011 (Arvind Sharma Vs M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member November 19, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)