State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narinder Kumar & Another vs Rkm Housing Ltd. & Ors. on 19 February, 2021
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2020
Date of Institution : 01.12.2020
Date of Decision : 19.02.2020
1. Narinder Kumar Vasudev, age 47 years, S/o Sh.Subhash Chander
Vasudev. Email : [email protected]
2. Smriti Sharma, W/o Sh.Narinder Kumar Vasudev.
Email : [email protected]
Both residents of H.No.131, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh.
........Complainants.
Versus
1. RKM Housing Ltd., SCO No.1-4, Behind Chandigarh Engineering
College, Sector 112, Landran, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its
Director/Managing Director.
2. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Director, M/s RKM Housing Ltd., through
Superintendent of Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh.
3. Manpreet Kaur, Director, RKM Housing Ltd., SCO No.1-4, Behind
Chandigarh Engineering College, Sector 112, Landran, SAS Nagar,
Mohali. Email ID of OP No.1to3: [email protected]
4. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office : Warden House,
2nd Floor, Sir P.M.Road, Fort Mumbai.
Email : [email protected]
......Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section
47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs.Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the complainants : Sh.Vipin Kumar, Advocate with Sh.Narinder Kumar, complainant No.1 Smt.Smriti Sharma, complainant No.2 For OPs No.1to3 : Sh.T.S.Khaira, Advocate For OP No.4 : Sh.Tushar Arora, Advocate CC No.243 of 2020 2 JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
The complainants have filed this complaint, under Section 47(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 49(2) of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following reliefs :
1. To set aside the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.11.2010 (Ex.C-1) & Buyer's Agreement dated 25.10.2016 (Ex.C/3) and declare the said memorandum & agreement as illegal on account of being 'unfair contract' as defined under S. 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2.(a) To direct OPs No.1-3 hand over the possession of the allotted plot No.109 and to execute sale deed along with all facilities and amenities with the Completion Certificate within one month from the date of filing of the complaint
(b) OPs No.1-3 be directed to pay interest @ 15% p.a. on the deposited amount from agreed date of possession of the plot till date of actual physical possession.
(c) To pay the EMIs to the OP No.4 from agreed date of possession till actual handing over of possession.
OR, in alternative to prayer No.2 (a), (b) & (c) above,
(d) to direct OPs No.1-3 to refund the whole amount received from the complainants with interest @ 15% per annum from respective dates of payments;
(e) OPs No.1-3 be directed to pay the whole amount of EMIs along with interest already paid and being paid by the complainants to OP No.4.
3. OPs No.1-3 be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the complainants for mental agony and emotional distress caused to them due to deficient services and unfair trade practices.
4. To pay litigation costs of Rs.55,000/-
Facts of the Complaint
2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that complainants approached OPs No.1-3 for purchase of a residential plot for their residence in the month of October, 2010. OPs No.1-3 explained about their project through plans and other documents. It misrepresented the complainants that CC No.243 of 2020 3 they had all the requisite approvals/clearances and sanctions from the government and competent authorities and gave assurance that the fully developed plot would be handed over within 1 to 1.5 years. Believing their assurances. They booked a residential plot of size 250 sq. yard with 80 feet road at the basic sale price of plot Rs.32,50,000/- the EDC Rs.5,00,000/- and PLC Rs.1,50,000/- for 80 feet road. The complainants paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 06.10.2010, Rs.4,00,000/- on 01.11.2010 and Rs.3,12,500/- on 09.11.2010. Thereafter, the OPs No.1-3 issued Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 09.11.2010. As per para 7 of the MoU, the possession of the plot was to be handed over within 12 months from date of MoU. The complainants asked many times to OPs No.1-3 for buyer's agreement but they delayed the matter on one pretext or the other, but kept on demanding further payments and also threatened them that any delay in the payment would attract penalty @ 12%. Complainants under these compelling circumstances made further payment of Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.04.2011, Rs.3,37,500/- on 15.07.2012, Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.08.2012 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 08.11.2012 to OPs No.1-3. Till 08.11.2012 complainants had paid an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- to OPs No.1-3. After repeated requests, finally on 25.10.2016, OPs No.1-3 had entered into buyer's agreement allotting a plot No.109, measuring 250 Sq.yds to the complainants and also issued allotment letter on the same day. Complainants objected that the Agreement is unfair and also not in conformity with the standard as provided under Form APR VIII of the PAPR Rules 1985, But OPs No.1-3 did not give any satisfactory reply. OPs No.1-3 failed to specify in writing the date of possession of plot as required under Section 6 of the PAPRA, 1995. OPs No.1-3 have also violated the Rule 16 of the PAPR Rules 1985. Complainants further paid an amount of CC No.243 of 2020 4 Rs.19,00,000/- through loan from OP No.4 to OPs No.1-3. As such a total sum of Rs.37,00,000/- stand paid by the complainants. Complainants have made multiple attempts to gain possession of the plot by approaching OPs No.1-3 time and again, but OPs No.1-3 have not responded to the grievances till date. On 03.10.2010, when the complainants visited the site to see the process of project, they were shock to hear from the officials of OPs No.1-3 that the plot No.109, in question, has been sold to someone else, namely-Sukhpal Gupta. They objected to the same, but no satisfactory reply was given to the OPs No.1-3. These acts of OPs No.1-3 amount to deficiency in service by failing to give possession of the plot to the complainants within time and clearly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of law. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Upon notice OPs No.1-2 have filed the written statement raising preliminary objections of complaint being not maintainable; this Commission has no jurisdiction, non-joinder and misjoinder of parties, and barred by limitation etc. On merits, execution of MoU, and agreement dated 28.10.2016 are admitted. OPs No.1-3 also admitted receipt of Rs.37 lacs from the complainants as averred in the complaint. However, it is stated that the complainants made payments to answering OPs for reserving a plot in their future project. Rests of the allegations have been denied by OPs No.1-
4. OPs No.3&4 did not file their written statement.
5. During the pendency of the complaint the parties showed their willingness to explore the possibility of settlement through mediation under Section 37 of the CP Act, 2019. Accordingly, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OPs no.1&2 had recorded statement giving their consent for mediation.
CC No.243 of 2020 5
6. Since no Mediation Cell has been set up as State Government has not issued notification for establishment of Consumer Mediation Cells as per provisions of Section 74(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we ourselves took the burden of mediating the matter between the parties. With the intervention of the Bench, the matter has been settled between the parties.
7. Today the complainants have made statement recoded separately that they have compromised the matter in mediation with OPs No.1-3 as per compromise/settlement deed dated 18.02.2021 as Ex.CX. Parties will be bound to comply with the terms of the settlement deed dated 18.02.2021. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1-3 has made the statement recorded separately, to the effect that he identifies the signatures of OPs No.1-3 on the compromise/settlement deed dated 18.02.2021, Ex.CX and unapproved layout plan attached with the compromise deed.
8. In view of the above, the complaint is disposed of being compromised. The compromise deed dated 18.02.2021 is made part of this order. The parties will be bound by the same.
9. Learned counsel for the complainants has prayed that since the matter has been settled by way of compromise, they are entitled to refund of the court fee.
10. In view of the Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (Mediation) Rules, 2020 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 17.02.2021 in SLP(C) No.3063-3064 of 2021 titled as 'The High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M.C.Subramaniam & Ors.' the court fee paid by the complainants is ordered to be refunded to the complainants in equal shares.
11. As per report of the Registry, complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- at the time of filing the complaint. The Registry to refund amount CC No.243 of 2020 6 of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants in equal shares by way of crossed cheque/demand draft, as per usual practice.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 19, 2021 Rupinder 2