State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rawel Singh vs C And C Towers Ltd. on 13 March, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1) Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017
Date of institution : 26.07.2017
Date of decision : 13.03.2018
Rawel Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, R/o House No.1818, G.Z.S.
Nagar, Ropar-140001 (Pb.).
....Complainant
Versus
1. C & C Towers Ltd., Site Office: C & C Towers, ISBT-cum-
Commercial Complex, opposite Verka Milk Plant, Gate No.5,
Phase-6 (Sector 57), Mohali, through its Chairman/Director/
Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No.70, Sector 32,
Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Chairman/Director/Managing
Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
3. G.S. Johar, Chairman, C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot
No.70, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana.
....Opposite Parties
2) Consumer Complaint No.605 of 2017
Date of institution : 26.07.2017
Date of decision : 13.03.2018
Deepak Sood S/o Sh. S.K. Sood, R/o House No.471, G.Z.S. Nagar,
Ropar-140001 (Pb.).
....Complainant
Versus
1. C & C Towers Ltd., Site Office: C & C Towers, ISBT-cum-
Commercial Complex, opposite Verka Milk Plant, Gate No.5,
Phase-6 (Sector 57), Mohali, through its Chairman/Director/
Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No.70, Sector 32,
Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Chairman/Director/Managing
Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
3. G.S. Johar, Chairman, C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot
No.70, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 2
3) Consumer Complaint No.606 of 2017
Date of institution : 26.07.2017
Date of decision : 13.03.2018
1. Bharat Kumar Singh S/o Late Sh. Budhadev Singh, R/o House
No.3304, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.
2. Ravinder Nath Singh S/o Late Sh. Budhadev Singh, R/o House
No.3149, Ajanta Co-op House Building Society, Sector 51-D,
Chandigarh.
....Complainants
Versus
1. C & C Towers Ltd., Site Office: C & C Towers, ISBT-cum-
Commercial Complex, opposite Verka Milk Plant, Gate No.5,
Phase-6 (Sector 57), Mohali, through its Chairman/Director/
Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No.70, Sector 32,
Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Chairman/Director/Managing
Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
3. G.S. Johar, Chairman, C & C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot
No.70, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Kabir Sarin, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
This order will dispose of above mentioned three (3) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), as the facts and the questions of law involved in all these complaints are the same and all the complaints have been filed against the same opposite Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 3 party/parties by the complainant(s). The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017.
Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:
i) to refund the entire amount of ₹11,58,500/- deposited by the complainant towards the unit, in question, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part; and
iii) to pay costs of litigation to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-.
Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties made a number of assurances through various newspapers, marketing e-mails and telemarketing with regard to launching of their integrated project under the name and style of "C&C Towers" and the tower namely "C&C Capital", having salient features. The complainant was not in the business of sale and purchase of the properties. In order to get an office space for his business, with a view to earn his source of livelihood by means of self-employment, he approached the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 assured him that they are in possession of all the permissions and approvals to hand over the Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 4 possession of the unit in time. Accordingly, the complainant submitted an Application Form on 09.07.2010, along with booking amount of ₹6,62,000/- by way of draft No.916761 dated 09.07.2010, to opposite parties No.1 & 2. Along with the Application Form, they also received declaration to the effect that "I/we further confirm that the property is not being leased by me/us for any unlawful use or purpose or otherwise with an intention to support or assist in any kind of price manipulation or unfair trade practice as to the real estate sector". The said undertaking shows that the unit sought to be purchased was not for price manipulation or unfair trade practice, but it was for self use. The opposite parties issued a demand notice dated 21.08.2010, wherein demand of ₹4,96,500/- was raised. The complainant paid the said amount to them, vide cheque No. 431680 dated 21.09.2010, drawn on Indian Bank. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued allotment letter dated 29.09.2010, wherein they agreed to complete the construction within a period of 30 months from the date of allotment, as per condition No.1.3.5 thereof and to hand over the possession thereof after completing commercial complex and after obtaining requisite certification. The date of allotment was 29.09.2010 and the lease started on 15.12.2009 and construction had to be completed within a period of 30 months i.e. up to 14.06.2012, but the opposite parties failed to disclose the reason for not completing the construction in time. No development was started at the site and the work was abandoned by them. The opposite parties sold the unit, measuring 662 sq.ft. at the price of ₹5000/- per sq. ft. The BSP of the unit was ₹33,10,000/-. Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 5 Besides this, ₹2,50,000/- were charged towards covered parking space; ₹66,200/- towards IFMS; ₹66,200 towards power backup charges; ₹33,100/- towards Fire Fighting Charges; and ₹99,300/- towards one time lease administration fee. Thus, the total price of the unit was ₹38,24,800/-. The complainant opted "Construction Linked Payment Plan", under which 20% has to be paid at the time of application and 15% has to be paid at the time of allotment. He duly paid 35% of the amount in time, as per payment plan. However, the opposite parties did not start the construction work, as per the payment plan. The complainant came to know through newspaper reports dated 31.03.2013, 20.04.2015 and 24.06.2015 that a notice has been served upon opposite parties No.1 & 2 by GMADA due to non-completion of construction and also about cancellation of agreement by GMADA with opposite parties No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the amount deposited by him, but they took false stand by informing him that the delay in the project was due to various variations in the layout and designs of the project by the State Government. Further, the opposite parties issued letter dated 07.05.2015 to one of the allottees, wherein it was informed that Bankers, GMADA and other stake holders have committed to extend their financial support and informed to restart the construction by July, 2015 and completion of project by mid 2017. This letter was breach of condition by the opposite parties themselves. One of the allottees sought information under RTI Act from GMADA and came to know that no license has been granted to the opposite parties for this project and Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 6 no agreement was executed between the opposite parties and the Government in this regard. The complainant wrote letter dated 29.12.2015 to the opposite parties, requesting them to refund the amount deposited by him, along with interest. He received letter dated 13.07.2017 from them, wherein OPs mentioned about payment of interest @ 8.8% per annum from the date of receipt of 35% BSP till 31.08.2016. Thereafter, the opposite parties remained silent about the status of the project as well as refund of the deposited amount of the complainant. The opposite parties received an amount of Rs.11,58,500/- from complainant, but they did not reach the first floor slab by raising construction, from which first installment was to be commenced and, as such, the opposite parties retained the hard earned money of the complainant, without any basis. No requisite permissions and approvals were obtained by OPs on the date of receiving the registration amount from complainant. Thus, the opposite parties violated various provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, "PAPRA"), which they were bound to comply with. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply, raising certain preliminary objections that the claim of the complainant seeking higher rate of interest, compensation etc. is beyond the scope of specific terms and conditions of the allotment. Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 7 The matter involves complicated questions of law and facts, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complainant has failed to disclose the material facts to this Commission. He does not fall under the definition of 'consumer', as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as the said space is commercial in nature, which has been purchased by the complainant solely to earn profit. The complainant failed to substantiate his claim of requiring the commercial space for earning his livelihood. He himself admitted that he is a businessman and is resident of Ropar, whereas he wanted to set up his another business at Mohali in the unit, in question. As per the allotment letter, the complainant was contractually bound to clear all instalments in a timely fashion, as and when called upon to pay the same by the opposite parties. However, only 35% of the payable amount was paid by the complainant. He has been clearing the instalments in staggered manner, linked to various stages of construction. As per the allotment entered into by the complainant, he shall have an option to surrender his commercial space, subject to certain terms and conditions qua forfeiture. In the event the complainant wishes to surrender his space, he shall be governed by Clause 1.2.1 and 1.2.3 of the allotment and certain amounts shall be forfeited automatically. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated. Allotment of the space, in question, in favour of the complainant and deposit of registration amount was admitted. It was further pleaded that the project has been allotted by GMADA (Concessioning Authority) to develop a new integrated Bus Terminal-cum-Commercial Complex at Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 8 Mohali through Public Participation on Design, Build, Operate and Transfer ("DBOT") basis, in terms of Concession Agreement dated 15.04.2009 entered into between GMADA, the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab for and on behalf of Government of the State of Punjab, acting through Director, State Transport, GOP (Confirming Authority 1) and Punjab Infrastructure Development Board (Confirming Authority 2). As per the said agreement, the construction period was to be of 18 months, starting from 18th months from compliance date for the Bus Terminus and related passenger amenities and 30 months starting from compliance for the commercial complex in respect of structural framework and completion of exteriors/façade with the option to complete the internal finishing work, as per the requirement/demand, but in no case more than 8 years from compliance date, subject to the condition that no disturbance is caused to other occupants of commercial complex and Bus Terminal. The compliance date as per the agreement was to be arrived in 120 days from the date of agreement i.e. 15.04.2009. Subsequently, the concerned parties were re-negotiating a fresh compliance date, as the statutory and other Government Authorities delayed the sanctioned plans etc. Due to delay in approval of drawing and designs by GMADA, the conditions precedents were not completed by GMADA. Consequently, the period of construction was extended till 04.04.2011. Partial Occupation/Use of Block-A, Basement-1, Basement-2, Lower Ground Floor, Ground Floor & First Floor, wherein Bus Terminus was situated, was issued by GMADA, vide memo No.GMADA.S.D.O. (B)/2016/56140 dated Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 9 15.12.2016. As per Clause 1.19 (B) of the Allotment, the buyer acknowledged that the transferor has readily provided all the information and clarifications, as required by him and that he was not influenced by any sale brochures etc. It was further pleaded that the construction of the said unit was likely to be completed in 30 months, failing which the complainant was bound by Clause 1.3.5 of the allotment, which stipulates a case of delay, as alleged in this case by the complainant, and attracts a compensation at the rate 6% SI per annum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other allegations of the complainant were also denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Evidence of the Parties
3. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-16 and Mark C-6 to Mark C-8.
4. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Yash Paul Dua, AGM-Legal/Admin., as Ex.OP-A. Contentions of the Parties
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant is not in the business of sale and purchase of the properties. He purchased the space, in question, just for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Therefore, the complainant duly falls under the definition of 'consumer'. Moreover, the Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 10 opposite parties failed to prove that the unit, in question, was purchased by him for generating profits. It was further contended that along with the application for allotment of the unit, in question, an undertaking was duly taken from the complainant, to the effect that the unit was not purchased with an intention to support or assist in any kind of price manipulation or unfair trade practice as to the real estate sector. It was further contended that as per clause 1.3.5 of allotment letter, Ex.C-5, the construction of the unit was to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of the lease period, after obtaining necessary approvals and sanctions, subject to force majeure circumstances and reasons beyond the control of the Transferor. The lease started on 15.12.2009. The opposite parties received a sum of ₹11,58,500/-. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the project, in question, within the said stipulated period, without disclosing any cogent reasons. No development was carried on at the site. The complainant came to know from the newspapers that the agreement between the opposite parties and GMADA has been cancelled and apprehending safety of his financial interest, he sought refund of the amount deposited from the opposite parties. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, by not honoring their commitments, as per the allotment letter. Accordingly, it has been contended that the complaint be allowed and all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint, be awarded in favour of the complainant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following cases:
Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 11
i) C&C Towers Limited & Anr. v. Raman Kumar First Appeal No.1439 of 2017, decided on 04.08.2017 (National Commission);
and
ii) Bharat Kumar Singh v. C&C Towers Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.650 of 2017, decided on 15.02.2019 by this Commission.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the commercial space, in question, was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose and he purchased the same for earning profits. He failed to prove that he purchased the said unit for earning his livelihood. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It was further contended that the agreement between the opposite parties and GMADA was not cancelled and the newspaper articles to this effect are unsubstantiated. The said cancellation has never been enforced nor the licence has been terminated till date. It was further contended that the main bus terminus has been inaugurated by the Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab in the first week of December, 2016. The construction work is going in full swing, as per the sanctioned building plans and in compliance of the Municipal laws, regulating the construction. The delay in construction/completion of the project was due to the delay on the part of GMADA to approve the drawings and designs of the project. It was further contended that Partial Occupation/Use of Block-A, Basement-1, Basement-2, Lower Ground Floor, Ground Floor & First Floor, wherein Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 12 Bus Terminus was situated was issued by GMADA, vide memo No.GMADA.S.D.O. (B)/2016/56140 dated 15.12.2016. The project, in question, is a Develop, Build, Operate, Transfer (DBOT) basis and has all the necessary approvals, licenses from the Government as well as the competent authorities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Much stress has been given by the opposite parties in their written reply and arguments that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as contained in the Act, as he purchased the unit, in question, for commercial purpose in order to earn profits. To prove their claim, as made in their reply, the opposite parties proved affidavit of Sh. Yash Paul Dua, AGM-Legal/Admin., as Ex.OP-A. Except this, there is no other evidence/document produced by the opposite parties on the record to substantiate their claim. Bald statement/affidavit on the part of the opposite parties in this regard, in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, is not sufficient to hold so. Thus, the opposite parties miserably failed to prove that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, for commercial purpose to earn profits therefrom. Hon'ble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 13 ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for profit. In the instant case also, there is no evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant indulged in sale purchase of properties and that he purchased the unit, in question, for further sale or for earning benefits. Accordingly, the above said contention of the opposite parties is rejected and the complainant is held to be 'consumer', under the Act.
10. Now coming to merits of the case, admittedly, vide allotment letter dated 29.09.2010, Ex.C-5, the complainant was allotted unit No.8, Tower C, 7th Floor, C & C Capital, measuring 662 sq.ft. As per version of the complainant, the total cost of the unit, in question, was ₹38,24,800/-, which also included covered parking space charges, IFMS charges, power back up charges, external electrification/fire fighting charges and one time lease administration fee. The complainant opted "Construction Linked Plan" and deposited a sum of ₹11,58,500/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, in question, vide cheques Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4, which forms 35% of the price of the unit, as has been duly admitted by the opposite parties in Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 14 their reply. As per clause 1.3.5 of the allotment letter, Ex.C-5, the construction of the unit was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, subject to force majeure circumstances. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of project/unit within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause. Newspapers clippings Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 prove this fact. It is also clear from these newspaper cuttings that GMADA even served show-cause notice upon the opposite parties, as to why the agreement entered between GMADA and the opposite parties should not be cancelled for not completing the said project within the stipulated timeframe. As per the information obtained by one of the allottees, under RTI Act, Ex.C-11, no licence of construction was granted to C & C Tower Ltd. and no agreement was entered with the Government by C & C Tower Ltd. The opposite parties have also failed to produce on record any licence, agreement or approval given by GMADA in their favour to raise the said project. The opposite parties wrote letter dated 13.07.2017, Ex.C-14, to the complainant, vide which they agreed to refund the deposited amount of the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 8.8% per annum from the date of receipt of 35% of the BSP to 31.08.2016, which was to be paid in four equated quarterly instalments, commencing from October-December, 2017. He was asked to sign an undertaking, giving his concurrence to extend the construction timeline by three years commencing from September, 2016 to August, 2019, during which he was to be eligible to claim payment of interest damages. This letter clearly proves that the Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 15 opposite parties failed to complete the project within the stipulated time frame and they further sought extension for completing the construction timeline from September, 2016 to August, 2019. The opposite parties pleaded in their reply that the delay in the project was due to various variations in the layout and designs of the project by the State Government. However, in the absence of any agreement executed by them with the State Government, it is not proved on record that the delay in completion of the project was on account variance in the layout and designs of the project on the part of the Government.
11. In similar set of circumstances, this Commission in Bharat Kumar Singh's case (supra) held that no licence of construction was granted to the opposite parties, nor any agreement was executed between the opposite parties and the Government and, thus, directed the opposite parties to refund the entire deposited amount of the consumer, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides compensation and litigation expenses. In Raman Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission upheld the order passed by this Commission, holding the opposite parties deficient and directing them to deliver possession and to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the consumer. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite parties are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. Keeping in view of the above circumstances, we hold that the opposite parties have failed to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 16 PAPRA. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land, on which such project is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a project, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a project. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.
13. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the project, but they failed to produce on record any such permission. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.
14. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
15. Further, as per Section 12 of the PAPRA, if the builder fails to deliver possession of the plot/apartment/space/unit by the specified Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 17 date, then the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest.
16. As per Rule 17 of the "Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-
17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment."
17. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount received from the complainant-buyer was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per Section 9 of PAPRA and we wonder where that amount had been going. The opposite parties are not to play the game at the cost of others. When it insists upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, it is to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply with the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. Thus, the delay in not delivering the possession of unit, in question, within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the complainant is to be suitably compensated.
Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 18
18. The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the unit in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of unit and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with the opposite parties, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the unit booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builders knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and Rules and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainant to book the unit, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 19 reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of building the plots, as mentioned in Section 9 of PAPRA. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest and compensation.
19. So far as the prayer of the complainant to award 18% interest per annum on the deposited amount, is concerned, Hon'ble National Commission in case Kamal Sood v. DLF Universal Ltd. 2007 (3) C.P.J. 7 (NC), in similar set of circumstances, where the builder was at fault in not obtaining permission for construction in advance before issuing advertisement and collected money from customers without having any licence, ordered for refund of deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12%, besides compensation. Thus, in view of the above authority as well as Rule 17 of PAPRA, the complainant is entitled to the refund of her deposited amount, along with interest at the rate of 12%.
20. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties: Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 20
i) to refund ₹11,58,500/- deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and
ii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.
Consumer Complaint No.605 of 2017
21. Similarly, in this case, the complainant was allotted unit No.7, 7th Floor, Tower C, C&C Capital, measuring 675 sq.ft. by the opposite parties, vide allotment letter dated 29.09.2010, Ex.C-5. As per averments in the complaint, the total price of the said unit was ₹38,95,000/-, which also included covered parking space charges, IFMS charges, power back up charges, external electrification/fire fighting charges and one time lease administration fee. The complainant opted 'Construction Linked Plan' and deposited a total sum of ₹11,81,250/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, in question, vide cheques Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4. As per clause 1.3.5 of the allotment letter, Ex.C-5, the construction of the unit was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, subject to force majeure circumstances. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of project/unit within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to refund the entire amount of ₹11,81,250/- deposited by the complainant towards the unit, in question, along with interest at Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 21 the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part; and
iii) to pay costs of litigation to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-.
22. The opposite parties filed reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017.
23. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-16 and Mark C-6 to Mark-8.
24. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Yash Paul Dua, AGM-Legal/Admin., as Ex.OP-A and document Ex.OP-1.
25. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:
i) to refund ₹11,81,250/- deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and
ii) to pay ₹20,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant as well as litigation expenses.Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 22
Consumer Complaint No.606 of 2017
26. Similarly, in this case, the complainants were allotted unit No.45, 1st Floor, Tower C, C&C Capital, measuring 738 sq.ft. by the opposite parties, vide allotment letter dated 22.01.2011, Ex.C-9. As per averments in the complaint, the total price of the said unit was ₹71,87,200/-, which also included covered parking space charges, IFMS charges, power back up charges, external electrification/fire fighting charges and one time lease administration fee. The complainants opted 'Construction Linked Plan' and deposited a total sum of ₹23,24,700/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, in question, vide cheques/receipt Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8. As per clause 1.3.5 of the allotment letter, Ex.C-9, the construction of the unit was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of lease period, subject to force majeure circumstances. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of project/unit within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause. Hence, the complainants sought following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to refund the entire amount of ₹23,24,700/- deposited by the complainants towards the unit, in question, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization;
ii) to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/-, on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants as well as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part; and Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 23
iii) to pay costs of litigation to the tune of ₹1,00,000/-.
27. The opposite parties filed reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017.
28. To prove their claim, the complainants tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.C-A and Ex.C-B, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-20 and Mark C-10 to Mark C-12.
29. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Yash Paul Dua, AGM-Legal/Admin. As Ex.OP-A and document Ex.OP-1.
30. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:
i) to refund ₹23,24,700/- deposited by the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and
ii) to pay ₹40,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants as well as litigation expenses.
31. Compliance of orders passed in all the complaints shall be made by the opposite parties within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.
32. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
33. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed Consumer Complaint No.604 of 2017 24 to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it would be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 13, 2018.
(Gurmeet S)