State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) ... vs 1. Ramesh Chander Bawa on 10 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 462 of 2013 Date of Institution : 25.10.2013 Date of Decision : 10/12/2013 M/s New Generation Real Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., through its Managing Director, C/o SCO No. 373-374, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through i. The Managing Director of the Company ii. Er. R.M. Singla, Director and the Authorised Signatory of the Company .Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 V e r s u s 1. Ramesh Chander Bawa s/o Late Sh. B.R. Bawa, allottee and resident of Flat No.425-F, New Generation Apartments, Ambala Kalka Road, Near Railway Crossing, Zirakpur 140603. .Respondent No.1 /complainant Proforma respondents 2. The Govt. of Punjab through :- i. The Principal Secretary (Local Govt. Department) Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh (U.T.) (service dispensed with vide order dated 28.10.2013). .Proforma Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 3. E.O./Nagar Council (earlier NAC/NP) Zirakpur. . Proforma Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Dinesh Madra, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Ramesh Chander Bawa, respondent no.1, in person, alongwith his Authorized Representative Sh. Ramesh Chander Khurana.
Sh.
Ashish Yadav, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Service of Respondent No.2 dispensed with, vide order dated 28.10.2013.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.09.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1) and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now the appellant), as under:-
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed :-
i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
ii) OP No.1 shall furnish the completion and occupation certificate of the apartment to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii) OP No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.
30. This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within the stipulated period, as directed above, failing which, OP No.1 would be liable to pay the double of the compensation amount alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, besides payment of litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Party No.1 (now the appellant) gave advertisements for construction of Phase II apartments at Zirakpur and attracted by the same, the complainant and his family members, visited the site of the complex. They were duly impressed, by the magnificent entrance, from NH-22 side, and existence of beautiful central park. Brochures/ Prospectus of Phase II apartments were also issued. Vide advertisement dated 07.12.2003, published in the Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, Annexure CD-1 it was represented that it was a Punjab Govt. approved project. Vide brochure Annexure CD-2 it was represented that the Town Planning Scheme, had been duly sanctioned by the Punjab Govt., vide Gazette Notification No.4/8/2001-2LGIII/3238 dated 12.03.2001. It was also mentioned, in the advertisement Annexure CD-I, by Opposite Party No.1, that in Pocket-V, there will be a Community Centre, and a lush green belt, to eclipse the ugly sight of railway track and to give better look of Shivalik Hills, to the buyers of apartments/flats, on the North East side of Phase III, which was to come next to Phase II. The Director of Opposite Party No.1, showed the model flat, in Phase II, to the complainant, and further added that the other flats, in Phase II would be like the model flat or even better than that. It was also explained to the complainant that the shopping complex would be a single storeyed small group of shops, to cater to the requirements of the residents of New Generation Apartments, exclusively, and entry for the outsiders would not be allowed. Believing the assurances, given by the Director of Opposite Party No.1, and the contents of advertisements and brochures, referred to above, the complainant made up his mind to purchase an apartment, in Phase II, alongwith car parking space and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards booking. Apartment No.425-G, IVth Floor, Block G, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 21.07.2003, copy whereof, is Annexure CD-3. Subsequently, Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5 was also executed between the parties.
3. It was stated that the complainant made a detailed study of the Clauses of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5, and asked a number of questions, from Er. R.M. Singla, Director of Opposite Party No.1, who gave the replies that the initial plan of the Complex was slightly changed/amended, which was sent for necessary sanction to the Competent Authorities. The complainant was also told that after receipt of the revised sanctioned plan, the same shall be shown to the allottees.
4. It was further stated that the Director of Opposite Party No.1 made false claims, that it (Opposite Party No.1) had got valid sanction, from the Competent Authorities, with regard to the amendment of layout plan, vide letter dated 02.03.2007 Annexure A-2, at page 469 of the District Forum file. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 told that a sum of Rs.10,000/- would have to be paid, over and above the cost of apartment, at the time of taking over of possession of the apartment, in February, 2004.
5. It was further stated that, the Director of Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant that conveyance deed would be executed, in his name, and till the same was executed, no maintenance charges would be charged from them. It was further stated that it was told to the complainant, that if there was any alteration, in the plans or the projections etc., a Supplementary Agreement as per Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5, may have to be executed, between the parties.
6. It was further stated that no Supplementary Agreement was executed, between the parties, as per Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5 , till 27.02.2004, when the possession of apartment, in question, was handed over to the complainant, vide possession letter, copy whereof is Annexure OP-6, after receipt of the entire sale consideration thereof. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, never communicated to the complainant, in respect of any changes, in plans or projections. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, carved out major changes, in the New Generation Apartment Complex, totally against the interests of the complainant, and other allottees.
7. It was further stated that, at the time of taking over the possession, a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as maintenance security charges, was also demanded from the complainant. The complainant raised an objection, but the Director of Opposite Party No.1 explained that the said amount would be retained only for a period of 3 to 6 months, which period was required by the Company to transfer the property, in his name, and no further maintenance charges would be charged from them. It was further stated that keys of the apartment were handed over to the complainant, and the Director of Opposite Party No.1 told him that it (Opposite Party No.1) had decided to handover the charge of maintenance of apartments, to S.S.Maintenance Agency, Zirakpur (Pb.), w.e.f. April, 2004. The complainant was requested to pay Rs.12,000/-, as advance maintenance charges, for two years.
8. It was further stated that the complainant asked a number of questions, with regard to the apartment, in question, from the Director of Opposite Party No.1, in response whereto, it was told to him that the completion and occupation certificates were already applied for, and the same would be received shortly, from the Competent Authorities. He was also told that, thereafter, further action would be taken to transfer the property, in his name, by way of conveyance deed. It was further told to the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 had rescheduled its policy, in the matter of maintenance of apartments and complex, for which, it would be charging Rs.500/- p.m., from him.
9. It was further stated that the Director of Opposite Party No.1 made false assurances, in the advertisements and brochures. It was further stated that the complex was no longer Abode for the Elite. The allottees/residents of Phase I and Phase II, were up in arms, with Opposite Party No.1, due to total lack of clarity, in respect of living conditions of the whole project, as there was no provision of adequate civic amenities, essential services and common amenities. The total car parking space, in basement, was stocked with cement and other building material. It was further stated that even there was no separate feeder of electricity for the complex, and the life of the complainant was miserable, due to acute humidity, dust, flying cement particles, silica in water, mosquitoes, noise etc. It was further stated that as a soothing measure Opposite Party No.1, issued letter No.NGRE/Zirakpur/2267 dated 11.02.2005 Annexure CD-8, in accordance with which, Opposite Party No.1 withdrew the decision of charging maintenance charges of Rs.500/- p.m. w.e.f. 01.02.2005. It was further stated that, in another attempt to calm down the complainant and other allottees, another letter No.NGRE/Zirakpur/ 2283 dated 21.02.2005 was issued, by Opposite Party No.1, vide which, a meeting was called on 06.03.2005, but it was preponed to 26.02.2005, and the minutes of the meeting were issued vide letter dated 26.02.2005 Annexure CD-9. It was further stated that total concentration of Opposite Party No.1, was focused, on the construction work, in Phases III and IV and further attention was totally towards the construction activity started in Phase V, and the commercial complex. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, completely ignored the pending works, in Phase II. It was further stated that the complainant and his family members, faced terrible problems, due to non-operative lifts and total lack of sanitation, in the complex.
10. It was further stated that, in the month of February 2004, construction activity was on/started, in Phase III apartments, as shown in the brochure, and, at that time, there was an attractive and magnificent entrance to the complex, from NH-22. It was further stated that there was an outer attractive gate, followed by a road, having a small beautiful park. It was further stated that, suddenly, in February 2005 (infact February 2004), the construction activity started near the internal gate, in Pocket-V. There was basement digging at a place, where the Company had projected a Community Hall. However, the construction activity in Phase V was not for Community Centre. The complainant came to know that Pocket V was going to be multi-storeyed flats, as basement + 5 floors and basement + 6 floors. It was further stated that there was no approval, from the Punjab Government, with regard to construction, in Phase V. It was further stated that the Registered Society took up the issues, with the Government Authorities, but they were hand in glove, with Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the construction activity started with digging for basement for 3 blocks, to come up and continued giving rise to endless problems, for the complainant, and his family members and made their life miserable. The unhygienic conditions made the complainant and his family members sick. The magnificent entrance, as shown in the brochure was totally defaced by Opposite Party No.1. The area of complex, marked as commercial complex, for the residents of New Generation Apartments, was suddenly snatched away by Opposite Party No.1, and instead of a small shopping complex, for the residents, multi-storeyed shopping complex-cum-Banquet hall, was raised, exclusively for the outside public. Opposite Party No.1 did not make the true disclosure, in respect of the car parking space, despite charging Rs.50,000/-, from the complainant, and the basement floor space allotted for the same (car parking) was insufficient, resulting into parking of the same (cars) here and there, causing great hardships.
11. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, repeatedly advertised, in leading newspapers and declared that the New Generation Apartments was a Town Planning Scheme, approved by the Punjab Govt., but after having sold the apartments, it had hardly adhered to any provisions, contained in the Acts/Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. It was further stated that the Clauses in the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5 , were incorporated, under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 never applied for the scheme under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. It was further stated that vide Clauses 13 and 17 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5 , Opposite Party No.1 promised to get the conveyance deed of the apartments, executed and registered, in the name of the complainant, within 3 to 6 months, from the date of possession having been delivered to him, in February, 2004. It was further stated that even after around 4 years, Opposite Party No.1, failed to execute and get registered the sale deed, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that even Opposite Party No.1 was not successful, in getting the Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate, from the Competent Authorities, so far. It was further stated that even the amended layout plan/Town Planning Scheme, was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority/Government of Punjab till date. It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of Opposite Party No.1, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs.
12. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable, as an equally efficacious remedy was availed of, by the complainant, by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, in the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, which was dismissed in limine, vide order dated 01.09.2005. It was further pleaded that prior to the filing of Civil Writ Petition, aforesaid, the so called Welfare Society, under the name and style of New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, under the President-ship of Mr. R.K. Saini, one of the complainants, filed a similar complaint, in District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed, vide order dated 18.12.2008. It was further pleaded that the said Society had also filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.02 of 2005, in this Commission, against Opposite Party No.1, wherein an application for the dismissal of same was moved. It was further pleaded that the said application was allowed by this Commission, and, thereafter, the complainant never returned. It was further pleaded that the aforesaid facts were concealed by the complainant, and, as such, he was liable to be thrown out, at the very threshold. It was further pleaded that, on account of these reasons also, the complaint was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that, as per the directions of the Hon`ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the State Government got an enquiry conducted, from the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, who after thorough investigation of not only the records, but also on the basis of spot inspection, submitted his report dated 28.10.2005 to the Government. It was further stated that the said report clearly falsified the allegations of the complainant, leveled in the Civil Writ Petition, referred to above. It was further stated that the said report of the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, was accepted by the complainant, and, thus, the matter attained finality. It was further stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had developed a duly approved and sanctioned project, under the Town Planning Scheme of the Punjab Government, vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It was further stated that various advertisements were got published and sign boards etc. were affixed, for the promotion and sale of apartments, in the duly approved and sanctioned complex, by Opposite Party No.1. It was denied that the complainant was allured by false promises, having been made by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant and other allottees, after fully satisfying themselves and verifying the documents, as also the details mentioned, in the advertisements, decided to buy the apartment, in question, and only thereafter, the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5, was executed between him and Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant, and the other prospective buyers, were very much aware about the layout plans, prior to the allotment of apartments, in question. It was denied that sanction of layout plan was awaited at any stage. It was further stated that the construction of complex was carried out, by Opposite Party No.1, in a phased manner that too, as per the drawings approved by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, and there was no violation of any of the plans for construction. It was denied that the Director of Opposite Party No.1 ever committed to construct a Community Centre, or provide a lush green belt, to eclipse the ugly sight aforesaid. It was further stated that since there was no alteration of the layout plan, to the detriment of the interests of the complainant, nor there was any change of any kind of super area, in respect of the apartment, in question, there was no question of executing a Supplementary Agreement, as envisaged under Clause 5 of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5. It was further stated that the conveyance deed had already been got registered, in the name of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant paid the maintenance charges, as payable under the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5 , without any objection or protest. It was further stated that the complainant was liable to pay interest, on the delayed payments, in terms of the Apartment Buyer`s Agreement dated 12.05.2003 Annexure CD-5, and he could not raise any grouse, with regard to the same. It was further stated that all the facilities and amenities, which were mandatory, had already been provided, and that was why, no grouse was raised with regard to the same, within the period of limitation. It was denied that there was defacement, on account of shifting of gate or the same had become ugly. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
13. Opposite Party No.3, in his written version, pleaded that there was no direct dealing or transaction between the complainant and him. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as defined under the Act. It was stated that no relief had been claimed by the complainant against Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that it was only after the order passed by this Commission, that Opposite Party No.3, came into picture. It was further stated that the Town Planning Scheme known as New Generation Flats, was approved and sanctioned by the Government, on the recommendation of Nagar Council, Zirakpur, on 12.3.2001 vide Gazette Notification No.4/8/2001-2LGIII/3238. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.1 applied for the amendment of the said scheme, which was sent to the Senior Town Planner, Ludhiana, by Nagar Council Zirakpur, for its technical approval. The Senior Town Planner, Ludhiana, conveyed its approval to the Nagar Council Zirakpur, vide its letter dated 28.06.2002, copy whereof is Annexure R-3/1. It was further stated that a resolution was passed by the Municipal Council, on 17.09.2002, recommending the amendment of the said scheme to the Government, for approval. It was further stated that necessary approval for amendment, in the said scheme, was pending with the Government and during that period the building plan, according to the amended scheme was submitted by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that keeping in view the instructions of the Government dated 03.12.1984 Annexure R-3/2, the building plan was approved, which clearly revealed that sanction of building plan, as per draft town planning scheme, could be permitted after obtaining indemnity bond, from the concerned person/firm during the pendency of final sanction of the Government. It was further stated that, with reference to the order dated 28.10.2005, the Nagar Council Zirakpur wrote letter dated 21.11.2005 Annexure R-3/4, to Opposite Party No.1, to comply with the directions contained therein (order dated 28.10.2005). It was further stated that a detailed report was sought from Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that reply dated 15.10.2006 Annexure R-3/6, was received from Opposite Party No.1, informing that it had complied with the order of the Principal Secretary, referred to above. It was further stated that the Nagar Council, Zirakpur, on inspection, found some violation of the order dated 28.10.2005, in the said scheme. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was informed that it had failed to comply with the directions, contained in the order dated 28.10.2005, and legal action would be taken against it. Thereafter, Nagar Council, Zirakpur received letter dated 14.03.2008, from Opposite Party No.1, with a request for ex-post-facto approval of the project, in question. The said request was forwarded to the Government, vide letter dated 09.07.2008 Annexure R-3/7. It was further stated that the no reply to the letter dated 09.07.2008 was received from the Government, despite sending various reminders. It was further stated that the Government informed Nagar Council, Zirakpur, that it had already written a letter dated 12.08.2008, wherein further details and documents, in respect of the said scheme, had been sought. As the details and requirements contained in letter dated 12.08.2008 were to be provided by Opposite Party No.1, the said letter (dated 12.8.2008) was sent to it (Opposite Party No.1). Thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 wrote a letter dated 17.12.2009 informing that No Objection Certificate etc. would be provided, as soon as, information with regard to the amended scheme was received. Thereafter, the Nagar Council Zirakpur, after complying with the directions contained in the letter dated 12.08.2008 of the Government, sent necessary recommendations through letter dated 28.12.2009 to it (Government), where the matter was pending. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
14. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.
15. The complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, led evidence, in support of their case.
16. After hearing the authorized agent of the complainant, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
17. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
18. Service of Respondent No.2 was dispensed with, vide order dated 28.10.2013, by this Commission.
19. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.3, Sh. Ramesh Chander Bawa, respondent no.1, in person, alongwith Ramesh Chander Khurana, his Authorized Representative, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, including written arguments, carefully.
20. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the original layout plan, in respect of the apartments, was sanctioned by the Competent Authority, vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001. He further submitted that the amended layout plan, was submitted by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, to the Competent Authority. He further submitted that according to Section 192 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, if the amended layout plan was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority, within six months, from the date of submission of the same, the same was deemed to be sanctioned. He further submitted that no misleading information or advertisement was given by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that the construction of complex was raised, in accordance with the layout plan, approved by the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur. He further submitted that, thus, construction could not be said to be illegal. He further submitted that the possession was delivered to the complainant, in respect of the apartment, in question, on 27.02.2004, and the complaint was filed on 16.05.2008, hence the same was barred by limitation. He further submitted that earlier a complaint was filed before the District Forum, which was dismissed as withdrawn, and, as such, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was not maintainable. He further submitted that even earlier, a complaint was filed before this Commission, which was returned to the complainant therein, with a liberty to file a fresh one, after removing the defects. He further submitted that, even a Civil Writ Petition was filed by the so called Society, of which the complainant was also one of the members, in the Hon`ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein, pleas which were taken in the complaint, were also taken, but the same was dismissed, at the preliminary stage. He further submitted that the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, was appointed to submit the report. He submitted the report dated 28.10.2005, which had attained finality. He further submitted that the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, was not applicable to the instant case, and, as such, the question of obtaining the completion and occupation certificates, did not at all arise. He further submitted that there was no defacement of the magnificent entrance of the complex. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in accepting the complaint.
21. On the other hand, respondent no.1, submitted that, in the brochure, as also, in the advertisements Annexure CD-1 and CD-2, false and misleading information was given, by Opposite Party No.1, to the effect, that the project was duly approved by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that the amended layout plan, was submitted by Opposite Party No.1, to the Competent Authority, but no sanction, so far has been granted, to the same, and, as such, it could not be said that the project was duly approved by the Punjab Government. He further submitted that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were applicable to the project of Opposite Party No.1, and it was required to obtain the occupation and completion certificates, before handing over the possession of apartment, to the complainant, as in the absence thereof, possession could not be said to be legal and valid. He further submitted that even magnificent entrance was defaced, by raising more construction. He further submitted that even Opposite Party No.1, being promoter, did not have licence, for development of the project, at the time, the advertisements were made and the information was given in the brochures. He further submitted that the complaint was not barred by time. He further submitted that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy, and, as such, filing of Writ Petition or decision thereof, could not debar the complainant from instituting the complaint. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 was guilty of deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted the District Forum was right, in accepting the complaint.
22. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint filed by the complainant, was within limitation or not. No doubt, the complainant/respondent no.1 was handed over the possession of residential apartment, on 27.02.2004, yet the occupation and completion certificates, from the Competent Authorities, were not obtained, by the time, the complaint was filed, and even till date. There was, thus, continuing cause of action, in favour of the complainant, to file the complaint. In Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah And Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380, wherein, the facts and circumstances were similar to the one, involved, in the instant case, it was held that there was a continuing cause of action, and the complaint was not barred by time. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC), the complainant applied for a plot, in the year 1992, on the basis of inducement made in the advertisements of the petitioner, knowing fully well, that the land, in question, was under
litigation. Consumer Complaint was filed, in the year 2009, claiming relief of execution of the sale deed, which was granted to him. An objection was taken that the complaint was barred by time. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that there was a continuing cause of action, and, as such, the complaint was not barred by time. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint was not at all barred by time. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
23. The second question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complaint was not maintainable, in view of the earlier complaints, having been filed by the complainant, which were dismissed as withdrawn. It may be stated here, that Consumer Complaint bearing No.02 of 2005, under Section 17 of the Act, titled as New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs. R.M. Singla (Promoter and Builder), New Generation Apartments Real Estate Ltd., was filed on 11.03.2005. The Counsel for the complainant, therein, made a statement to the effect that the complaint be allowed to be returned to it, with liberty to file a fresh one, describing categorically and specifically, the person, who was authorized by the Society, under the resolution passed, to file the same. Accordingly, the prayer was allowed. Another Consumer Complaint No.04 of 2005, was filed under Section 17 of the Act, on 07.04.2005, by the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President-Mr. R.K. Saini, one of the complainants, against R.M. Singla (Promoter and Builder), New Generation Apartments Real Estate Ltd., before this Commission. An application was moved under Order 23 of Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, for withdrawal of the complaint, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action, before the appropriate Forum. This Commission, vide order dated 19.09.2005, allowed the application, filed by the complainant therein, and it was permitted to withdraw the complaint, with a liberty to file a fresh one, before the appropriate Forum. Further liberty was also granted to it, that, if any cause of action, or deficiency, in rendering service, was made out, then it was also permitted to file a fresh complaint, with amended grounds, in the Forum. Another Consumer Complaint bearing No.552 of 2008, was filed by Ram Karan Saini, before District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 08.09.2011. Since, two Consumer Complaints filed in this Commission, referred to above, were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh one, on the same cause of action, or even on a different cause of action, before the appropriate Forum, and one complaint filed by Ram Karan Saini, in his individual capacity against M/s New Generation Real Estate (P) Ltd., and Ors., was dismissed as withdrawn, by District Forum (I), the complainant, in our considered opinion, could certainly file the Consumer Complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen. Had no liberty been granted by this Commission, to the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, referred to above, to file a complaint afresh, the matter would have been different. Under these circumstances, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was legally maintainable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
24. The third question, that falls for consideration, is, as to what was the effect of the decision of Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, filed by the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President- Sh. R.K. Saini, against the State of Punjab and others, on the filing of the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen. It may be stated here, that in the Civil Writ Petition, aforesaid, no notice was issued to the respondents, and the same was disposed of, vide order dated 01.09.2005-Annexure OP-4, at page 307 of the District Forum file, directing respondents no.2 to 4 therein, to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 07.06.2005 and 18.07.2005, and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. The aforesaid Writ Petition, was, therefore, not disposed of, on merits. Even otherwise, it may be stated here, that Section 3 of the Act, provides an additional remedy. With a view to appreciate the controversy, in its proper perspective, reference to Section 3 of the Act is required to be made, which reads as under ;
3.Act not in derogation of any other law.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
25. Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force. The complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was filed by the complainant, for deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice, by Opposite Party No.1. The mere filing of Civil Writ Petition, aforesaid, which was, ultimately, not disposed of on merits, would not oust the Jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora, in view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. As stated above, since Section 3 of the Act, is worded in widest terms, and leaves no manner of doubt, that the provisions of the Act, shall be, in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law, for the time being, in force, the complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was certainly maintainable. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs N.K.Modi III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and C.C.I. Chambers Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 9 (SC).
26. The fourth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were/are applicable to the project, in question, or not. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, was issued by the Government of Punjab, in exercise of powers vested in it, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, for khasra Nos.188, 189, 190, 198, 199 and 200, New Generation Flats, in village Dhakoli, Hadbast No.48 measuring 23 Bigha 10 Biswa, within the limits of Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, as per layout plan drawing No.STP(S)3/2000 dated 17.08.2000, the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were not applicable. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The project, in question, was a Group Housing Project. Sub Section (2) of Section 1 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, clearly lays down that it shall extend to whole of the State of Punjab. No exception was engrafted to Sub-Section (2) of Section (1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, defines advertisement, allottee, apartment, etc. etc. Section 2(y) of the said Act, defines promoter as the person, (a) who constructs or causes to be constructed building consisting of apartments, or, converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons, and includes his assigns; or, (b) who develops land into a colony, whether or not he also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons, all or some of the plots, whether open or with structures thereon; and (c) where the person who constructs or converts a building or develops a colony and the person who sells apartments or plot are different persons, the term includes both of them. Explanation (2) to Section 2(y) of the said Act defines, that a person who acts as described in Sub-Clause (c) of Clause (y) shall be deemed to be a promoter, even if, (i) he styles himself as a builder, colonizer, contractor, developer, estate promoter or by any other name; or (ii) he claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney, from the owner of the land, on which the building is constructed or colony is developed. Section 3 of the said Act, relates to the general liabilities of promoter. Section 4 of the said Act, relates to the issuing of advertisement or prospectus, by the promoter. Section 5 of the said Act, lays down that any promoter, who desires to develop a land into a colony, shall make an application, in the prescribed form, alongwith the prescribed information and with the prescribed fee, to the Competent Authority, for grant of permission, for the same and separate permission was necessary to be obtained, for each colony. Section 7 of the aforesaid Act relates to the registration of agreements of sale. Section 14 relates to the occupation and completion certificates, required to be obtained by the promoter, builder, colonizer etc. etc. Section 43 talks of the over-riding effect of the said Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, contained in any other law, for the time being, in force, or in any contract. Since, Opposite Party No.1/appellant is the promoter and it developed the land, by constructing apartments, for the purpose of sale/allotment thereof, to various allottees, it was governed by the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. Even, as stated above, Section 43 clearly lays down, that the provisions of this Act, shall have the over-riding effect, notwithstanding anything, to the contrary, contained in any other law, for the time being, in force, or in any contract. No doubt, Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, was issued under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The provisions of both the Acts, may proceed parallel, in different areas, without overlapping each other, but it would not be correct to say that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 were not applicable, to the housing project, in question, developed by Opposite Party No.1/appellant, by raising construction of apartments, possession whereof was delivered to various allottees, including the complainant. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect that the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, are not applicable to the instant case, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
27. Not only this, the Competent Authority, vide public notice, through the newspaper-Indian Express dated 28.01.2006, copy whereof is at page 177 of the District Forum file, also informed that the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, was in force, in the whole State of Punjab w.e.f. 15.10.1995, to regulate colonies and property transactions. The general public was, therefore, advised in their own interest to find out the details of licences granted by the Competent Authority, under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, from the website www.puda.nic.in or the Licensing Branch, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, before making any investments. According to this public notice, independent layout plan of the projects were required to be got approved from the Competent Authorities, before making any advertisements, for sale of plots/apartments, or to prelaunch the schemes. This public notice also clearly established that the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, were applicable to the project, in question, but the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 did not comply with the provisions thereof, before launching the project, in question.
28. The fifth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, in the advertisement, copy whereof is Annexure CD-1 of 7th December 2003, in the Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, a misleading information was given by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 that it was a Punjab Government approved project, or not. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that the original Town Planning Scheme was sanctioned vide Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001, under Section 192 (3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, by the Punjab Government. Admittedly, the layout plan was revised by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1. The question arises, as to whether, by the time, the advertisement copy whereof is Annexure CD-1, referred to above, was given, the amended layout plan, was duly approved by the Competent Authority or not. The answer to this question, is in the negative, as would be discussed hereinafter. Earlier, Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, was filed by the New Generation Apartments Residents Welfare Society, through its President, Sh. R.K. Saini, which was disposed of, at the preliminary stage, directing respondents no.2 to 4 therein, to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 07.06.2005 and 18.07.2005, and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. After the order in Civil Writ Petition No.13667 of 2005, was passed by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Sh.B.R.Bajaj, Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, conducted an enquiry and submitted the report dated 28.10.2005 Annexure OP-5. From Annexure OP-5, report of Sh.B.R.Bajaj, Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh, it is revealed that Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, for the purpose of carving out a Town Planning Scheme for an area measuring 23 Bigha 10 Biswa, situated within its Limits, vide its resolution No.62 dated 05.04.2000, resolved the area as Unbuilt. The proposal of Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur was examined at the Govt. level and vide notification dated 11.5.2000, the scheme area was confirmed as unbuilt. It was also held that the land owner was to bear the total cost of development of the scheme area, as per the undertaking given by him/it (land owner) to the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur. The draft layout plan of the scheme was formulated by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, and then it was sent to CTP (Local Government) through STP Ludhiana, for technical clearance. After technical approval of the layout of the scheme, Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, vide its resolution No.57 dated 18.11.2000, adopted the layout plan of Town Planning Scheme and the Government was requested to accord final approval to the same (Town Planning Scheme), to be known as New Generation Apartments Scheme. After taking technical advice, from the STP (LG), Nagar Panchayat, forwarded the case to the Director, Local Government Department, on 20.09.2002, for approval of the amended layout plan of the Town Planning Scheme, but without annexing therewith the amended layout. Thus, vide reference dated 27.01.2003, the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, was asked to send a copy of the amended layout plan, and was also advised to follow the required legal procedure, as per the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (as amended in 1994), for carrying out amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme, because the same procedure, as was required to be followed, at the time of framing of scheme needed to be followed, while making amendment, in the said scheme. Thereafter, the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, adopted the revised scheme layout plan, but without following the due procedure. The land owner(s) submitted the building application, for construction of building, as per the revised layout plan of the scheme and the building application was sanctioned by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, taking cognizance of the Government instructions dated 03.12.1984, wherein, it was clarified that after the scheme layout plan had been finally adopted by the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, but was pending final approval of the Government, as provided under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, the ULB may sanction the building plan, accordingly, so that the land owner(s) may not suffer unnecessarily. This fact of sanction of building plan, as per the revised layout plan, adopted by Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, vide resolution No.59 dated 17.09.2002, came to the knowledge of the Government, when the petitioner had approached it, vide representation dated 07.06.2005 that the land owners were violating the original layout plan of Town Planning Scheme, sanctioned by the Government on 12.03.2001.
29. Thereafter, the Government advised the Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, that it may immediately apply for approval of the revised layout plan, as provided under Section 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, because for carrying out any amendment, in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, the Government was the Competent Authority, for according final approval. It was also observed that since the land owner(s) had started the construction, after taking approval of the building plans, as per the revised layout plan, duly adopted by Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, therefore, it (Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur) was advised not to interfere, in the construction activity, if the same was in conformity with the revised layout plan. Though, in the inquiry report dated 28.10.2005, the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Local Govt., Chandigarh, observed that the construction under reference had been raised, as per the revised Town Planning Scheme layout plan, yet his report also revealed that for carrying out any amendment, in the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, Government is the Competent Authority, for according final approval. Annexure R-4 letter dated 20.09.2002, at page 374 of the District Forum file, shows that the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur requested the Director, Department of Local Bodies Punjab, Chandigarh, that the amended layout plan of the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Apartments, be forwarded to the Government for according sanction. The Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, was required to follow the legal procedure for carrying out the amendment, in Town Planning Scheme, because the same procedure, as was required to be followed at the time of framing of the scheme needed to be followed, while making amendment in the scheme. There is a letter dated 23.09.2005, at page 380 of the District Forum file, sent to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur inter-alia showing that the Government had directed the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, to obtain the post-facto approval of amendment, in the Town Planning Scheme of New Generation Apartments, from the Government, after following due procedure. The Nagar Council Zirakpur received letter dated 14.03.2008 Annexure R-3/13, at page 389 of the District Forum file, from Opposite Party No.1, making a request for ex-post-facto approval of the project, but without sending the old site plan and the site plan of construction raised at the spot.
30. Opposite Party No.1 was asked to provide the required documents and after the same were received, its request, for ex-post-facto approval was sent to the Government, through letter dated 09.07.2008 Annexure R-3/15. Thereafter, reminders were sent to the Government on 19.03.2009, 19.08.2009 and 14.09.2009, copies whereof are Annexure R-3/16 to R-3/18. After that the Government informed Nagar Council, Zirakpur, that it had already written a letter dated 12.08.2008, seeking some further details and documents. Thereafter, a letter was sent to Opposite Party No.1, for sending the details and the documents referred to, in letter dated 12.08.2008. After receiving letter from Opposite Party No.1, Nagar Council Zirakpur sent necessary recommendations through letter dated 28.12.2009 to the Government and the matter was pending with it (Government). The aforesaid resume of facts, clearly goes to prove that the layout plan of the amended scheme of 100% group housing, has not yet been approved, by the Competent Authority i.e. the Government of Punjab. Thus, a misleading advertisement, copy whereof is Annexure CD-1, was given by Opposite Party No.1, that the project, in question, was approved by the Government. In brochure Annexure CD-2, it was also, in clear-cut terms, mentioned by Opposite Party No.1, that this Town Planning Scheme had been duly sanctioned by the Punjab Govt. vide gazette Notification No.4/8/2001-2LG/III/3238 dated 12.03.2001. By giving a misleading information in the advertisement, Annexure CD-1 and the brochure Annexure CD-2, that it was a Punjab Government approved project, though this fact was false, to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1, it certainly indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding so.
31. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, took shelter under Section 192 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, that if the amended layout plan was not sanctioned, within six months, from the date of submission of the same, then it was deemed to have been sanctioned. This submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, does not appear to be correct. From the resume of facts, referred to in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident, that Opposite Party No.1 had not sent the requisite documents, asked for, by the Government, from time to time. Had all the documents, as asked for, by the Government, been sent in time, and there had been no deficiency, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the matter would have been different. Only, in those circumstances, Opposite Party No.1 could take shelter, under the provisions of Section 192(4) of Punjab Municipal Act 1911. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
32. The sixth question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, it was mandatory, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, to obtain the completion and occupation certificates, in respect of the apartment, in question, in the first instance, and handover possession of the same (apartment), to the complainant, thereafter. Section 3(i)(j) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 clearly lays down that the Competent Authority, could direct the promoter not to allow persons, to enter into possession, until the occupation certificate, required under any law, was duly given by the appropriate Authority, under that law, and no person shall take possession of an apartment, until such occupation certificate was obtained. Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, reads as under:-
14.(1) It is the responsibility of the promoter,-
(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said Authority; and
(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the Competent Authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all respects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under Section 5.
(2) The Authority referred to in Sub-Section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate
33. The conjoint reading of Sections 3(1)(j) and 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, clearly goes to show that it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No.1, to obtain the completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, before handing over possession, to the complainant. In the absence of obtaining completion and occupation certificates, as required by the aforesaid provisions of law, the possession of the complainant, in respect of the apartment, in question, could not be said to be legal, in nature. There is nothing, on the record, that the completion and occupation certificates were obtained by Opposite Party No.1. Had Opposite Party No.1 obtained the completion and occupation certificates, atleast copies thereof, would have been produced, on the record, by it. In the absence of the same, an adverse inference could be drawn, against Opposite Party No.1 that it had not obtained the same. Not only this, had the completion and occupation certificates been obtained by Opposite Party No.1, it would have certainly supplied the same, to the complainant, as he took possession of the apartment, as far as back on 27.02.2004. Violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 3(1) (j) and Section 14 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, by not obtaining the completion and occupation certificates, and handing over of the possession of apartment, in question, in the absence thereof, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.
34. No doubt, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the construction was raised, as per the building plan, approved by the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur, and this fact also stands supported from the report dated 28.10.2005, of the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Chandigarh. According to the Counsel for the appellant, in case, the complainant/respondent no.1 was apprehending demolition of the apartment, allotted to him, on account of non-sanction of the revised layout plan, then he could ask for refund of the amount, but he had not done so, and, as such, it could not be said that he had any grievance against Opposite Party No.1. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. By taking possession of the apartment, on the basis of misleading information, given by Opposite Party No.1, that the revised layout plan was got sanctioned from the Competent Authority, the complainant could not be said to have diluted or minimized the unfair trade practice, indulged into by Opposite Party No.1, or deficiency, in rendering service, by it. It was for respondent no.1/complainant, to consider, as to what relief he wanted to claim, against Opposite Party No.1. By not asking for the refund of amount, deposited by the complainant, towards the price of the said apartment, it could not be said that Opposite Party No.1 did not indulge into unfair trade practice, or there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on its part. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
35. Not only this, the provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, under the heading REGISTRATION OF PROMOTERS AND ESTATE AGENTS, clearly lays down that an application for registration under Sub-section (1) as a promoter, or as an estate agent, as the case may be, shall be made alongwith a prescribed fee, in the prescribed form to the Competent Authority, and it (Competent Authority) on receipt of the said application may enter the name of the applicant in the register of promoters, or in the register of estate agents, as the case may be, maintained under the said Act in the prescribed form and grant a certificate of registration in the prescribed form to such person for the conduct of his business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said certificate. Not only this, Section 21(1) of the said Act, further, clearly lays down that from the date as may be fixed by the State Government, by Notification, in the Official Gazette, in that behalf, no person shall carry on the business of promoter or estate agent, or represent or hold himself out, as carrying on such business, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Registration granted under the said Act. However, Annexure CD-13, at page 177 of the District Forum, shows that the Competent Authority, issued Certificate of Registration as Promoter to M/s New Generation Real Estates (P) Ltd., on 05.10.2004 and validity thereof, was upto 04.08.2009. It means that Opposite Party No.1 was not a registered promoter, in the year 2003, when it gave advertisements of booking for Phase II apartments, contrary to Section 21(1) referred to above. In case Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd. reported as III(2007) CPJ-7 (NC), it was held that a builder should not collect money, from the prospective buyers, without obtaining the required permissions, such as zoning plan, layout plan, schematic building plan etc. It is the duty of the builder, to obtain the requisite permissions or sanctions, such as sanction for construction etc., in the first instance, and, thereafter, recover the consideration from the purchasers of the flats/building. The ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, this act of Opposite Party No.1 also amounted to unfair trade practice.
36. One of the reliefs, with regard to registration of sale/conveyance deed, in respect of the apartment, in question, by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, has also been sought by the complainant. It may be stated here that perusal of the copy of sale deed dated 24.8.2004 Annexure OP-7 shows that Opposite Party No.1 had already executed the same (sale/conveyance deed), in respect of the apartment, in question, in favour of Sh.Ramesh Chander Bawa, complainant. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.
37. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the direction given by the District Forum, in paragraph number 30 of the impugned order, the District Forum directed that, in case, Opposite Party No.1 did not comply with the order, within the stipulated period, then it shall be liable to pay double the compensation amount, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is justifiable. It is a well settled principle of law that Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. In our considered opinion, when compensation, in the sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 had already been granted to the complainant, the direction to pay double the compensation amount, alongwith interest @9% P.A., referred to above, given by the District Forum, was not justified. This direction of the District Forum, thus, deserves to be set aside.
38. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.3, and Sh. Ramesh Chander Bawa, respondent no.1, alongwith, Ramesh Chander Khurana, his Authorized Representative.
39. For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, and Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-
i. To pay a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, as compensation, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to respondent no.1/complainant, as also deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence, into unfair trade practice, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, as awarded by the District Forum, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
ii. To obtain completion and occupation certificates, from the Competent Authority, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.
iv. The direction of the District Forum, that in case of non-compliance of the impugned order, within the stipulated period, fixed by it, Opposite Party No.1 would be liable to pay double the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, @9% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, is set aside.
v. In case, the amount mentioned in Clause (i) of paragraph 39 above, is not paid, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, then it shall carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, and compliance of other directions, indicated above.
vi. Any other direction, given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, or in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.
40. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
41. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
10/12/2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg