State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sheela Devi vs Manohar Infrastructure & ... on 8 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 918 of 2016 Date of Institution : 14.12.2016 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Shaminder Walia son of Lt. Sh.Ranjit Singh Walia, r/o L105, Sector 127, Gillco Towers, SAS Nagar, Punjab. Gautam Arora son of Sh.Hargovind Arora, r/o H.No.69, Phase 7, Mohali, presently residing in Apartment 715, Building 1-9, Al Khail Gate Apartments, Al Quoz, Dubai U.A.E., through its General Power of Attorney Holder, Shaminder Walia son of Lt. Sh.Ranjit Singh Walia, r/o L105, Sector 127, Gillco Towers, SAS Nagar, Punjab. ......Complainants V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. ....Opposite Party Argued by: Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 12 of 2017 Date of Institution : 06.01.2017 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Vivek Aggarwal son Sh.Krishan Kumar, r/o # 143 Ajit Nagar, Patiala, currently residing in 10416-152 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, through his General Power of Attorney holder, Sh.Navdeep Kumar son of Sh.Raj Kumar r/o B-X-178, Street 4, Prem Basti, Sangrur. Navdeep Kumar son of Sh.Raj Kumar r/o B-X-178, Street 4, Prem Basti, Sangrur, Punjab. Tarun Syal s/o Sh.Rattan Chand Syal, r/o #1012, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh. .......Complainants V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. ....Opposite Party Argued by: Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 890 of 2016 Date of Institution : 07.12.2016 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Sheela Devi daughter of Sh.Sidhu Ram and wife of Sh.Sandesh Kumar Dhiman, aged about 67 years. Vikram Dhiman son of Sh.Sandesh Kumar Dhiman; Both residents of Flat No.103, Block B-11, Nirmal Chhaya Towers, Zirakpur-140603. ......Complainants V e r s u s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh. ....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 916 of 2016 Date of Institution : 14.12.2016 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Sh.Bhupinder Singh son of Sh.Kartar Singh, r/o House No.2190, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative. ....Opposite Party Argued by: Sh.Akshay Mittal, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sudesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.Dipinder Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 926 of 2016 Date of Institution : 15.12.2016 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Jorawer Singh Mann son of Sh.Inderjeet Singh Mann, r/o House no.503, Peer Musshala, Zirakpur, Mohali. ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO 139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory. ....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh.Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaint case No. : 964 of 2016 Date of Institution : 27.12.2016 Date of Decision : 08.05.2017 Mrs.Maya Godara wife of Shri A.R. Godara, House No.607, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana. ......Complainant V e r s u s M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. ....Opposite Party Argued by:Sh.Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. ===================================================== Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid six (06) consumer complaints, wherein the complainants have sought refund of the amount, paid towards purchase of residential units. In consumer complaint bearing No.916 of 2017, arguments were heard on 07.04.2017 and in rest of the five cases, referred to above, arguments were heard in common, on 06.04.2017. In all the complaints, referred to above, the complainants are the original allottees and issues involved in all the six consumer complaints, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. As such, during arguments, it was agreed by Counsel for the contesting parties, that all the six complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no. 918 of 2016, titled as Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction s Pvt. Limited. The complainants for their personal use, booked one residential plot, measuring 250 square yards, in a project, launched by the opposite party, namely 'Palm Garden' situated at Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab. They paid booking amount of Rs.13.65 lacs, on 11.01.2012, vide receipt Annexure C-1. The said application was shown as an expression of interest, to purchase the said plot @Rs.18,200/- per square yard. Total sale consideration of the plot was fixed at Rs.45.50 lacs. It was stated that nothing was done for more than one year, the payment made was acknowledged only on 23.09.2013 vide letter Annexure C-2.
It is specific case of the complainants that when moving application on 11.01.2012, assurance was given by the opposite party that possession of the fully developed plot, in the said project, will be handed over within few years. Thereafter, with a hope to get possession, further payment of Rs.9,10,000/- and Rs.6,82,500/- was made by the complainants, on 24.09.2013 and 21.07.2015 respectively, vide receipts Annexure C-4 colly.
The complainants visited the office of the opposite party, in the month of January 2016 and asked it to present Buyer's Agreement for signing and also to know the date on which possession of the developed plot will be given. The opposite party failed to give any concrete reply. Rather, it was stated that on account of non-development, let the complainants be relocated in another part of mega housing project, named as 'Palm Springs', situated nearby. Accordingly, they were relocated and it was acknowledged vide document Annexure C-5 dated 21.04.2016. In the process of relocation, an amount of Rs.4,55,000/- towards enhanced price of the plot and Rs.5 lacs were paid towards external development charges and internal development charges. Plot bearing no.1094 A, measuring 261 square yards, was shown to have been allotted to the complainants, vide letter dated 21.04.2016 Annexure C-6. Even then, Buyer's Agreement was not got executed between the parties. Prior thereto, by issuing letter Annexure C-7, promise was made that possession of the plot will be delivered by the end of December 2014.
It is specific case of the complainants that even till the date of filing of the instant complaint, possession of the developed plot was not offered to them. By making reference to the facts mentioned above, it is specifically alleged that there was complete violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short the PAPRA), which prohibits sale of any plot etc., in a project site, before necessary permissions are available in the hands of the project proponent. As per provisions of the PAPRA, in no case, more than 25% of the sale consideration can be received by the project proponent, before signing the Buyer's Agreement. It was further stated that assurance given by the opposite party, in the year 2011, when project was launched that it had all necessary permissions, was false. To say so, reference was made to the facts stated by the Competent Authority, in response to an application filed under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). Exemption from the provisions of Section 44 (2) of the PAPRA was not available with the opposite party.
Guidelines to launch project in the mega housing project, has been placed on record. In the said document Annexure C-9 (at page 52), it is specifically laid down as under:-
"4 Conditions for grant of concessions:-
..........
The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout/zoning plans are cleared from the competent authority and exemption u/s 44 of PAPRA is issued by the Government."
It is mandated that the project can only be launched when layout/zoning plans are cleared from the Competent Authorities and exemption is granted from operation of the provisions of PAPRA, by the Government concerned. It was also so said in the 'Letter of Intent' for the Grant of Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009, issued on 03.05.2013 (at page 65 of the file) issued in favour of the opposite party, by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
By stating as above, prayer has been made to issue directions to the opposite party, to refund the amount paid, to the extent of Rs.39,12,500/- alongwith interest; compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1 lac.
Upon notice, reply was filed by the opposite party, wherein, numerous objections were taken by it, like since complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature. Only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. It was asserted that the unit, in question, was purchased for future gain, as such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On merits, it was admitted that the plot was sold in favour of the complainants, in a project of the opposite party known as 'Palm Garden'. It was stated that thereafter, they surrendered their plot in the said project and opted to get another plot, which was allotted to them in 'Palm Springs'. It was stated that allotment letter Annexure O-1 was issued on 04.01.2017. They were also asked to come and sign the Buyer's Agreement, however, they failed to do so. Even then, plot was allotted to them, vide letter mentioned above. To say that there was lot of development in the project, photographs were placed on record. It was stated that the project was approved on 22.03.2013 Formal agreement was signed with the Government on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018. It was stated that exemption from the applicability of provisions of the PAPRA already stood granted by the Government concerned, in favour of the opposite party on 25.01.2017. In view of above, all acts of the opposite party in getting money deposited against expression of interest, from the purchasers stood justified. The exemption granted will relate back to the date, when application was moved for sanction, to launch the project, in the year 2011. Irregularity, if any, in accepting the expression of interest to purchase the land, has no adverse effect on the project launched by the opposite party. It was averred that withdrawal from the purchase is malafide and it is open to the opposite party to forfeit upto 20% of the amount paid. It was further stated that project was delayed on account of red-tapism in the offices of the Govt. Department concerned. It was also stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. It was further stated that claim of the complainants granting interest @18% p.a. is totally unjustified. Even for fixed deposits, in the banks, rate of interest is very less. It was further stated that, as on today, the project stood approved by the Competent Authorities. It was also stated that huge amount has been invested by the opposite party for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. It was stated that the complaint having no substance deserves dismissal.
In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the opposite party.
The parties led evidence, in support of their cases.
We have heard the contesting parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of all the cases, carefully.
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by Counsel for the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that all the complaints, referred to above, are liable to be partly allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
There is no dispute that the plot was sold to the complainants in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite party, on 11.01.2012, against sale consideration of Rs.45,50,000/-. On that date, an amount of Rs.13.65 lacs was received by the opposite party from the complainants, as booking amount. The payment made was 30% of the total sale consideration, for a plot measuring 250 square yards, in the project named 'Palm Garden'. Thereafter, the complainants again made payment of Rs.9,10,000/- and Rs.6,82,500/-, on 24.09.2013 and 21.07.2015 respectively, vide receipts Annexure C-4 colly. i.e. totaling to Rs.39,12,500/-. In the receipts Annexure C-1 and C-5, it was specifically stated that all the lay out plans, specifications and other details are tentative, subject to variation and modification. There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainants had already paid an amount of Rs.39,12,500/-. It is also an admitted fact that on account of non-development of the site, the complainants were relocated in another part of mega project, named as 'Palm Springs', vide document Annexure C-5 dated 21.04.2016, for which they paid an addition amount of Rs.4,55,000/- towards enhanced price of the plot and Rs.5 lacs towards external development charges and internal development charges. Ultimately, they were allotted plot bearing no.1094 A, measuring 261 square yards, vide letter dated 21.04.2016 Annexure C-6. However, notice in this complaint was issued in the month of December 2016. There is nothing on record to show that by that time, before grant of exemption from the provisions of applicability of PAPRA, any permission was available with the opposite party, to sell the project.
Be that as it may, contention of Counsel for the complainants that the project, in question, was sold without any permission/sanction from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provision reads thus:-
"6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908) ;"
The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that permission seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA has finally been granted only in this year (2017), which cannot be said to have any retrospective effect. As such, it could very well be said that by selling the units without exemption, the opposite party violated the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on its part.
To get a plot allotted in the project named as 'Palm Garden', first payment was received by the opposite party on 11.01.2012. It is virtually admitted on record that when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. It is admitted in the written version that part of the project of the opposite party was approved much later, in the year March 2013. Formal Agreement was signed with the Govt. of Punjab on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, additional area was added and supplementary agreement was signed on 16.06.2016. Notification granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA was issued only on 25.01.2017. Perusal of the said notification makes it very clear that exemption given was conditional, as has been referred in para no.5 of the said notification. Besides other conditions, condition no.5 (iii to vii), reads thus:-
"(iii). The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.
(iv). The promoter shall acquire the ownership of project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and land under agreement to sell. The plots falling under land proposed to be acquired if any through Govt. acquisition, plot through which revenue rasta or khali passes shall not be developed and sold till these pockets are acquired and ownership is transferred in the name of the Promoter.
(v) The plots/land to which the access is proposed through the land to be acquired if any by the Government shall not be developed and sold till that land under the access is acquired and transferred in the name of the promoter and access is provided.
(vi) The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.
(vii) Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board."
It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting 'No Objection Certificate' from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.
It was contended by Counsel for the opposite party that after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the irregularities adopted by it qua sale of plots in the year 2012, etc. stands rectified. In para no.16 of its reply, it was specifically stated by the opposite party that irregularity in accepting expression of interest for sale of the plot in the said project, will have no adverse effect.
We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. As stated above, when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed or admitted irregularities made, cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.775 of 2016 decided on 23.03.2017 (02 connected cases), wherein it was observed as under:-
"It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting No Objection Certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party. Contention of Counsel for the opposite party that notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the sale of plots in the year 2011 etc. stands rectified. We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. When project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:-
"The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint.
Qua a similar project launched by the opposite party in the same area, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi , under similar circumstances, this Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has observed as under:-
"The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-
"PUBLIC NOTICE This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard.
If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.
Chief Administrator GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar".
It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. It was so said by the Hon'ble National Commission in Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-
"OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land".
Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-
"We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-
If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.
6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate. Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project. Therefore, it is beyond one's comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible."
In the present case also, there is nothing on record that when expression of interest/applications were invited to sell the said project, clear intimation was given to the intending purchasers that the project sold was in infancy stage and it will take years together before necessary permissions will be provided by the Competent Authorities.
It was vehemently contended by Counsel for the opposite party that once exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA stood granted in the year January 2017, it will relate back to the date of launching of the project, and all irregularities stands rectified. To support above said contention, he has placed reliance on the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, titled as M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 130.
We are not going to accept the arguments raised. It has already been held in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra) that upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA, violation committed prior thereto, cannot be rectified. To so say, in Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra), reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by this Commission in Monika`s case (supra). The said finding was given in consonance with the findings of the National Commission in Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another`s case (supra).
As far as the reliance placed by Counsel for the opposite party on M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics` case (supra) is concerned, we have gone through the facts of the same very carefully and found that the same were altogether different from the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it was stated that power of the Government to grant exemption with regard to the land, in any area from operation of some of the provisions of the Act, for using the said land for a particular purpose, are to be seen, not at the time of sale/purchase of the land in dispute, but at the time, when it was going to be put for the said use. It was noted that after sale of the land, in dispute, when it was going to be put for industrial use, exemption already stood granted. The position is altogether different; as in the present case, by indulging into selling the project without any sanctions in its hands, the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice, as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) (i) and (iii) of the CP Act.
It is apparent on record that in the year 2012, activities of the opposite party in selling the project, without any sanction were noticed by the Competent Authorities and on 18.08.2012, as a result whereof, notice was published in a newspaper, stating that such sale was illegal. Copy of newspaper dated 18.08.2012, in which the said public notice was issued by the GMADA, is placed on record as Annexure C-10, in consumer complaint bearing no.890 of 2016, titled as Sheela Devi and another Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited.
Counsel for the opposite party by making reference to the contents of that notice reproduced in earlier part of this order, stated that the opposite party is named as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., whereas, the said notice was issued qua a project launched by a separate entity named M/s Manohar Singh & Co., which has nothing to do with the opposite party.
We are surprised, how such a contention can be raised. It appears that when raising that contention, the Counsel has failed to look into the documents and photographs placed on record, when filing the written statement on behalf of the opposite party. In the document Annexures C-1 and C-2, (admittedly issued by the opposite party) Logo of Manohar Singh & Co., has been used. The said logo appears as under:-
The same logo is available on various other documents on record and even on those documents, which were placed on record by the opposite party itself. Not only as above, in photographs placed on record as Annexure O-6 colly., on the tower situated, just next to the site office of the opposite party, logo plus name of Manohar Singh & Co., is available. It shows as under:-
Above facts clearly indicate that notice published was qua the activities of opposite party only. The opposite party is a group of Companies. As such, the objection raised by Counsel for the opposite party, stands rejected.
Further contention of Counsel for the complainants is that amount was received without offering Buyer's Agreement for signing. This fact is clearly admitted on record. The complainants were asked to sign the Agreement, only vide letter Annexure O-1 on 04.01.2017, when many complainants like the present one, started filing complaints against the opposite party. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for the project proponent to execute Buyer's Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three months. By not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing within reasonable time, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service. It was also so held by this Commission in Monika`s case (supra) as under:-
"Furthermore, it is apparent on record that the Buyer's Agreement was not presented for signing. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent for the project proponent to execute Buyer's Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three month. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
"The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated 23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer's Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer's Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected".
As such, in the present case, by not offering Buyer's Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service.
In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments also, by Counsel for the opposite party that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed, as such, there was no need to get the Buyer's Agreement executed. It may be stated here that it was an outright sale, when first payment was accepted by the opposite party, vide cheque dated 11.01.2012. Thereafter also, the amount was received by the opposite party and in all, it has received substantial amount of Rs.39,12,500/-. Above said contention raised by the opposite party, qua similar project, in the same area, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, wherein it was observed as under:-
"Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice."
It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite party. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite party was guilty of launching a project against mandate of law. In view of above contention of Counsel for the opposite party that the complainants waived of their right to raise any objection because it was known to them that the project has still not been approved, however, they opted to purchase, is liable to be rejected.
Another plea was taken by the opposite party, in its written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.
It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite party, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite party having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints), decided on 14 Aug 2015, which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite party failed to convince this Commission, that it actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite party, in this regard, is rejected.
At time of arguments, it was vehemently contended by Counsel for the opposite party that application to get mega project approved, was filed in the year 2011. Delay occurred on account of laxity on the part of the bureaucrats and further it was deliberately done, because of rivalry existing between the political party in power and the Managing Directors of the Company. Such a plea has been taken just to raise it without any material on record. It may be stated here that the application to get necessary permissions, was moved in the year 2011, what happened thereafter; whether any objection was raised; whether at any point of time, it was taken up with the Authorities concerned, to give permission(s), within three months, as per Rules or not, has not been made clear. There is nothing on record, whether any Officer(s) of the Management of this Company was/were the member(s) of any political party; they ever contested any election; and whether question of rivalry causing delay on account of political reasons was ever taken up before the Competent Fora/Court of Law. It is on record that to get necessary permission qua the land in the project, applications were moved in parts. The opposite party continued to purchase land and continued moving applications, to the Competent Authorities. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, stand rejected.
Further contention of the opposite party that as the complainants have opted for change of their plot from project 'Palm Garden' to 'Palm Springs', by moving an application Annexure C-5, as such, they cannot claim any benefit of the period, from the date when initial deposit was made on 11.01.2012 and till the time of approval of change of plot, vide document Annexure O-1 dated 04.01.2017, is liable to be rejected. (This issue is also involved in connected consumer complaints bearing no.926 of 2016 and 890 of 2016).
To rebut above said contention, it was specially stated by Counsel for the complainants that there was no development in the project, known as 'Palm Garden'. When the complainants insisted for grant of possession/allotment of plot, they were directed to shift to nearby project of the opposite party, known as 'Palm Springs'. It was specifically stated that there was no question of surrendering of previous allotment of plot, as alleged. Shifting was virtually done, because there was no development in the project known as 'Palm Garden'. The said issue was seriously agitated and during pendency of complaint on 16.03.2017, following order was passed by this Commission: -
"At the time of arguments, Counsel for the Opposite Party stated that initially the complainants had shown expression of interest to purchase the plot in the project known as 'Palm Gardens' to be launched by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the complainants moved an application to shift him from that project to the project known as 'Palm Spring'.
We direct the Counsel for the Opposite Party to file an affidavit whether project 'Palm Gardens was a part of the Mega Housing Project launched by the Opposite Party ; whether any development had taken place qua the said project or whether it has been abandoned as alleged by the complainants. Further, how many purchasers have been shifted from that project to other projects part of the Mega Housing Project of the Opposite Party. It be also stated whether 'Palm Gardens' was a part of the Mega Housing Project, land or not. In the affidavit, it be also stated whether the project 'Palm Gardens is a part of the project, qua which, exemption from the application of the provisions of PAPRA Act was granted to the Opposite Party on 25.01.2017. Needful be done on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 06.04.2017. Copy of the affidavit be given in advance to the Counsel opposite. "
It was specifically directed to the opposite party to file an affidavit, whether both the projects are part of the mega housing project; whether any development had taken place qua project known as 'Palm Garden' or it was abandoned. It was further to be stated, as to how many purchasers had shifted from the project 'Palm Garden' to other projects of the opposite party. In response to the above said order, following affidavit was filed by Sh.Dhanwant Singh Sidhu, Authorized Officer of the opposite party. Relevant contents of the said affidavit read thus:-
"1. That in terms of order dated 16.03.2017 this affidavit is being filed on behalf of the Opposite party.
2. That Palm Garden is a part of Mega Housing Project of OP Company.
3. That developments have taken place and the Palm Garden Project has not been abandoned as being alleged.
4. That 143 purchasers have shifted from Palm Garden to Palm Spring.
5. That Palm Garden is a part of Mega Housing Project land and the same is a part of Project qua which exemption was granted from the provisions of PAPRA on 25.01.2017".
No attempt was made to disclose, as to how much development has taken place in the project, known as 'Palm Garden'; to how many purchasers, possession has been delivered in the said project; what type of development existed at the spot. A very vague reply was given stating that development has taken place in the said project. It was also stated that as many as 143 purchasers have been shifted from 'Palm Garden' to 'Palm Spring'. That fact clearly indicates that on account of non development in the mega project area, named as 'Palm Garden', the purchasers were shifted to 'Palm Springs'. Further perusal of document Annexure O-1 makes it very clear that the mega project is titled as 'THE PALM' and it consists of many sub projects, in the same area, known as Palm Garden, Palm Springs, Palm Eco etc. Above said document Annexure O-1 dated 04.01.2017, makes it very clear that plot bearing no.1094-A, measuring 261 square yards, was allotted to the complainants in reference to their expression of interest dated 11.01.2012. In the alleged application Annexure C-5, which was made basis for shifting of plot from one part of the mega project to its other part, it is nowhere stated that earlier unit was surrendered by the complainants. The amount paid earlier was taken into consideration, when allotting plot vide letter dated 04.01.2017. Under above circumstances, benefit if any would accrue in favour of the complainants, from the date, when initially they deposited the amount on 11.01.2012.
In consumer complaint no.926 of 2016, one additional point was raised that against the plot allotted, loan was raised from the HDFC Limited and in the absence of that Bank, as a party to the complaint, no relief can be granted to the complainant therein.
We are not going to agree with the contention raised. HDFC Limited will have first lien on the amount, which will become payable to the complainant. The complainant will get the amount, only after getting clearance of loan account from HDFC Limited. Even otherwise, in almost all the cases, where refund has been sought, this Commission orders the refund, as per facts of each case, with a direction that the financial institution, from which the purchaser may have availed loan amount, if any, for making payment towards the unit(s), will have the first charge on the amount payable. Even in this case also, this Commission is going to order on the same lines. In view of above, the complaint cannot be dismissed on this ground.
In consumer complaint bearing no.12 of 2017, an additional point was raised by Counsel for the opposite party that first complaint filed before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, was dismissed as withdrawn, as such, this complaint is not maintainable.
We are not going to buy this argument. Perusal of record reveals that the said complaint was withdrawn, taking note of the fact that the said Forum did not vest with pecuniary jurisdiction in view of decision rendered by larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016, as total price of the plot in this complaint (CC/12/2017), is more than Rs.20 lacs and less than Rs.1 crore. In view of above, it is held that the said complaint is maintainable before this Commission and the objection raised, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.
Further contention of Counsel for the opposite party that the complainants are investors, as such, they are not consumers is also devoid of merit. It may be stated here that there is nothing on the record that the complainants are the property dealers, and deal in the sale and purchase of property, on regular basis, and as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by them, by way of investment, with a view to resell the same, as and when, there was escalation in the prices thereof. On the other hand, the complainants in para no.1 of their complaint have clearly stated that the plot, in question, was purchased by them for their personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by the opposite party, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. Since the opposite party has levelled allegations against the complainants, the onus lay upon it, to place on record, documentary evidence in that regard, which it failed to do so. Otherwise also, in a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. Not only as above, recently under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, the National Commission, while rejecting similar plea raised by the builder, observed as under:-
" In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that in every case where a person owns more than one house, the acquisition of the house is for a commercial purpose. In fact, this was also the view taken by this Commission in Rajesh Malhotra & Ors. Vs. Acron Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. First Appeal No. 1287 of 2014 decided on 05.11.2015."
The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a 'consumer', as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite party, in its written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.
It is an admitted fact that the opposite party is unable to deliver possession of the developed plot, in question, for want of development/construction, basic amenities etc. and still firm date of delivery of possession of the plot, could not be given to the complainants. It was only stated that the opposite party is making efforts to deliver possession of the plot, in question. Even the photographs placed on record by the opposite party itself reveal that still it will take a long time for completing the development work. The complainants cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period, for delivery of possession of the plot purchased by them. The opposite party, therefore, had no right, to retain the hard-earned money of the complainants, deposited towards price of the plot. Under these circumstances, it can be said that there is a material violation in providing service, on the part of the opposite party. It is a settled law that when there is a material violation on the part of the builder, in not handing over possession by the stipulated date, the purchaser is not bound to accept the offer, even if the same is made at a belated stage (in the present case possession not offered) and on the other hand, can seek refund of amount paid. It was so held by the National Commission, in a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, wherein, under similar circumstances, while negating the plea taken by the builder, it was held as under:-
"I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the complainants that considering the default on the part of opposite parties no.1 and 2 in performing its contractual obligation, the complainants cannot be compelled to accept the offer of possession at this belated stage and therefore, is entitled to refund the entire amount paid by him along with reasonable compensation, in the form of interest."
Not only as above, in a case titled as Brig Ajay Raina (Retd.) and another Vs. M/s Unitech Limited, Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2016, decided on 24.05.2016, wherein possession was offered after a long delay, this Commission, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Hon`ble National Commission, ordered refund to the complainants, while holding as under:-
"Further, even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that offer of possession, was made to the complainants, in July 2015 i.e. after a delay of about three years, from the stipulated date, even then, it is not obligatory upon the complainants to accept the same.
Further, in another case titled as M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dr.Manuj Chhabra, First Appeal No.1028 of 2015, decided on 19.04.2016, the National Commission, under similar circumstances, held as under:-
"I am of the prima facie view that even if the said offer was genuine, yet, the complainants was not obliged to accept such an offer, made after a lapse of more than two years of committed date of delivery".
The complainants, in all the complaints are, thus, entitled to get refund of amount deposited by them. In view of above facts of the case, the opposite party is also under an obligation to compensate the complainants, for inflicting mental agony and causing physical harassment to them, as also escalation in prices.
It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest, on the amount refunded, can be granted, in favour of the complainants. It is not in dispute that amount aforesaid, was paid by the complainants, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by the opposite party, for its own benefit. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainants are certainly entitled to get refund of the amount to be ordered by this Commission, alongwith interest on the deposited amount, from the respective dates of payments actually made by them.
It is necessary to mention here that alongwith Monika's case supra, one more case titled as Virinder Bharadwaj Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd., Complaint case No.252 of 2016, was filed before this Commission. Both the complaints were allowed by this Commission vide common order dated 27.09.2016. Aggrieved of that order, the opposite party went in appeal bearing no.1436 of 2016 before the National Commission. The opposite party therein, has assailed the above said judgment, to the extent only of granting interest on the principal amount involved and payment of compensation and litigation expenses. Notice was issued confined to that extent. The opposite party was directed to refund the principal amount paid by the complainant in that case. Above fact would mean that on merits, the opposite party has failed to lay challenge to the judgment passed by this Commission, referred to above.
As far as the plea raised by Counsel for the opposite party, regarding forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, it may be stated here that the same stands rejected, because it is not its (opposite party) case, that it was ready with possession of the plot, to be delivered to the complainants, by the stipulated date but the complainants wanted to rescind from the allotment of plot, on account of some unavoidable circumstances/financial constraints or for any personal reason, and are seeking refund of the amount deposited. Had this been the case of the opposite party, only in those circumstances, it would have been held that the complainants are entitled to the amount deposited, after deduction of the earnest money, as per law. Otherwise also, since in the present case, Agreement was not got executed by the opposite party, as such, no terms and conditions, whatsoever, were applicable to the complainants. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.
At the same time, it is also held that no complicated question of facts and law are involved in this case. It is a simple case of non-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainants, in the project of the opposite party. There is ample evidence on record, which proves that opposite party was deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice. This Commission is, therefore, competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Plea taken by the opposite party, in this regard, as such, stands rejected.
No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the parties, in all the complaints aforesaid.
For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs in the following manner:-
In consumer complaint bearing no. 918 of 2016 titled as Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.39,12,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
In complaint bearing no. 12 of 2017 titled as Vivek Aggarwal and ors Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.13,87,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.
In complaint bearing no. 890 of 2016 titled as Sheela Devi and another Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited., the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.52,07,500/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants.
In complaint bearing no. 916 of 2016 titled as Sh.Bhupinder Singh Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.18,50,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant.
In consumer complaint bearing no. 926 of 2016 titled as Jorawer Singh Mann Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.34,30,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.44,000/- to the complainant.
In complaint bearing no. 964 of 2016 titled as Mrs.Maya Godara Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, the opposite party is directed as under:-
To refund the amount Rs.27 lacs to the complainant, alongwith interest @13% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.25 lacs, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.
To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.44,000/- to the complainant.
The payment of awarded amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, in all the complaints, as ordered above, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @13%, from the respective dates of deposits onwards, and interest @13% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s) in any of the above complaints, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment towards the said units, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants).
Certified copy of this order be placed in the connected files, referred to above.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
08.05.2017 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. :
890 of 2016 Date of Institution :
07.12.2016 Date of Decision :
08.05.2017 Sheela Devi daughter of Sh.Sidhu Ram and wife of Sh.Sandesh Kumar Dhiman, aged about 67 years.
Vikram Dhiman son of Sh.Sandesh Kumar Dhiman;
Both residents of Flat No.103, Block B-11, Nirmal Chhaya Towers, Zirakpur-140603.
......Complainants V e r s u s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.139-141, Sector 17-C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
....Opposite Party Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants. Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite party. PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in consumer complaint bearing no.918 of 2016, titled as Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, this complaint has been partly accepted with costs.
Certified copy of the order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 918 of 2016, shall also be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in consumer complaint bearing No. 918 of 2016, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg.