State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Harnoor Singh vs Bcl Homes Ltd. on 31 October, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017
Date of Institution : 04.05.2017
Date of Reserve : 10.10.2017
Date of Decision : 31.10.2017
Harnoor Singh Son of Sh. Satnam Singh R/o 22/P, Punjabi Bagh,
Patiala, Punjab
....Complainant
Versus
1. BCL Homes Limited, Village Kishanpura, Adjoining Sector 20,
Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali through its Authorized
Signatory Sh. Baldev Bansal & Gopal Bansal.
Correspondence Address : House No. 253, Sector 7, Panchkula.
2. Munruchi Kaur wife of Mr. B.L. Saini R/o House No. 2049,
Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala
3. Akalrachna Kaur wife of Mr. Sarabjeet Singh R/o 622,
Lamarsh Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchwen, Canada, through
Attorney Munruchi Kaur.
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the complainant : Ms. Cherry Sofat, Advocate
For opposite party No.1: Ex.-parte.
For opposite parties No.2&3:Service dispensed with.
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that the complainant alongwith his mother had booked one apartment measuring 2000 sq. ft. for total sale consideration of Rs. 33 Lacs in their project Chinar City on Zirakpur Patiala Highway. His mother had expired on 10.3.2015 and complainant and opposite parties No. 2 & 3(their services were dispensed with) are the legal heirs of Jagjit Kaur. Initially booking amount was to be paid and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of actual possession after 1 year. A sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by the complainant out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid vide cheque No. 619506 dated 17.10.2011 vide receipt No. 2805 dated 18.10.2011 and Rs. 1,00,000/- vide receipt No. 2655 dated 11.10.2011 and Rs. 2,00,000/- vide receipt No. 2806 dated 18.10.2011. On 20.10.2011, letter was received from the Op regarding receipt of Rs. 6,00,000/- as expression of interest towards unit and that installments for the said apartment will start after 1 year of the booking and in case possession is not given by the Op within one year and if the complainant does not like to retain the flat, OP will buyback the flat Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 3 for Rs. 36,00,000/-. As the Op did not hand over the possession of the flat as promised so the complainant requested for refund of the amount alongwith additional amount agreed as buyback. On his request, Op given two cheques of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 2,70,000/- of HDFC Bank No. 000015 and 000016 dated 31.12.2013 in favour of Jagjit Kaur and Harnoor Singh(complainants) but on the other hand, asked him not to encash it as the Op was not in good financial condition at that time and assured to pay the same in cash. The complainant also came to know that Op did not have the requisite sanctions from the concerned Authority for launching this project as no permission was sought for conversion of use of land. It has been stated that approximately Rs. 23 Lacs is due to the complainant as buyback by the Op alongwith interest. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Op, this complaint has been filed by the complainant to pay Rs. 6 Lacs alongwith buyback amount of Rs. 3 Lacs, interest of Rs. 9,18,000/-, compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs, Rs. 40,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice was issued to Op No.1. They refused and unclaimed the notice, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7.7.2017 whereas service of Op Nos. 2 & 3 were dispensed with.
3. In the ex-parte evidence, the complainant had tendered his affidavit Ex. CW/1 and documents Ex. C-1 to C-9. Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 4
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant Ms. Cherry Sofat, Advocate and have carefully gone through the case file.
5. There is letter Ex. C-6 written by the Op vide which they thank the complainant for depositing the amount in their upcoming project to buy an apartment of approximately 2000 sq. ft. @ Rs. 33 Lacs per unit. Pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined by the Commission as per the cost of the unit agreed to be paid plus compensation, if any. Agreed price in this case is Rs. 33 Lacs, therefore, we are of the opinion that after adding the amount of compensation, if any, demanded by the complainant, its value comes more than Rs. 20 Lacs and less than Rs. 1 Crore, therefore, it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.
6. The complainant deposited Rs. 6 Lacs i.e. Rs. 3 Lacs vide receipt dated 18.10.2011 Ex. C-3, Rs. 2 Lacs vide receipt dated 18.10.2011 Ex. C-4 and Rs. 1 Lac vide receipt dated 11.10.2011. Ex. C-1 is the advertisement of their upcoming project Chinar Homes. Vide letter Ex. C-6 dated 18.10.2011, it was stated by the Op to the complainant that installments will start after 1 year from the date of issuance of this letter and in case he did not like to retain this flat after one year, the Company will buyback the flat @ Rs. 36 Lacs. Apart from that affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1, the evidence produced on the record by the complainant are documents Exs. C-1 to C-6 which are unrebutted. The complainant had just paid the booking amount. Whether in that circumstances, the complainant can be held as a consumer as defined under Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 5 Section 2(1)(d) of the Act? Consumer has been defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and services have been defined under Section 2(o), which reads as under:-
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
7. Surely, the complainant availed the services from Op and according to definition given under Section 2(o) even potential user could be considered as a 'consumer'. It has been so held by the State Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in case "Sarvpreet Singh Vs. The Managing Director/Prop., Chandigarh Royale City Promoters (P) Limited", F.A. No. 13 of 2015, decided on 10.3.2015. Reliance was also placed upon "Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta", AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 and "Chandigarh Housing Board versus Avtar Singh and others" 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 579.
8. Since Op has not come forward to rebut pleas raised by the complainant, therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of 'consumer'. The amount Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 6 paid by the complainant is Rs. 6 Lacs. In case Op failed to introduce the project and complete the construction, according to letter Ex. C-6, the amount was to be refunded after one year but it has not been refunded so far. In the absence of any rebuttal, there is nothing not to believe the evidence of the complainant, accordingly, we accept the complaint and direct the Op as under:-
(i) Refund a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from various dates of deposit till the date of payment;
(ii) pay Rs. 50,000/- as lumpsum compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation cost.
(iii) Out of that amount, half share be paid to the complainant and half share to the complainant and Op Nos. 2 & 3.
The above directions be complied by the Op within a period of 45 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
9. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
10. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) October 31, 2017. MEMBER as Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 2017 7