State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Singla vs Improvement Trust Bathinda on 15 February, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
1. Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017
Date of institution : 23.08.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Sh. Sunil Singla, aged 42 years s/o Shri Varinder Singla, r/o House
No.13764, Gali No.6, Near Durga Mandir, Ganesh Basti, Bathinda,
Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
2. Consumer Complaint No.867 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Meena Sharma w/o Shri Rajesh Sharma r/o House No.20579, Ajit
Road, Gali No.24/B, Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda through Special
Power of Attorney Holder Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma s/o Jagdish
Chander Sharma r/o House No.20579, Ajit Road, Gali No.24/B,
Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 2
3. Consumer Complaint No.868 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Kuldeep Kumar Chopra aged 64 years s/o Babu Ram Chopra r/o
House No.2770, D-4, Gali No.8, Ganesh Basti, Bathinda, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
4. Consumer Complaint No.869 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Mehar Chand Singla s/o Shri Prakash Chand Singla r/o House
No.128, Street No.3/3, Green Avenue Colony, Bibi Wala Road,
Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
5. Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Hem Raj s/o Charanji Lal r/o House No.20833 B, Street No.22-A, Ajit
Road, Bathinda, through its Special Power of Attorney holder Shri
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 3
Sanjeev Kumar Bansal s/o Chaman Lal r/o 1022, Urban Estate
(Model Town), Phase-3, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
6. Consumer Complaint No.871 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Mahesh Bansal s/o Atma Ram, R/o H.No.16740, Ward No.18, Street
No.5, Sarabha Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
7. Consumer Complaint No.904 of 2017
Date of institution : 23.10.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Harjit Singh s/o Harnam Singh, R/o H.No.729, Dugri Road, Phase-2,
Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 4
8. Consumer Complaint No.962 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Sukhdev Singh Sohal s/o Shri Daljit Singh, R/o H.No.D-28, NFL
Colony, Bathinda, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
9. Consumer Complaint No.963 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Anup Kumar s/o Shri Satpal r/o House No.210, R-2 HUDA, Chika,
District Kaithal (Haryana) through General Power of Attorney holder
Shri Ashu Garg s/o Madan Mohan Garg r/o Dharamshala Wali Gali,
Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
10. Consumer Complaint No.965 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 5
Amit Kumar aged about 32 years son of Shri Tej Ram Bansal,
Resident of H.No.17661, Khaddar Bhandar Wali Gali, Bathinda
through his General Attorney Tej Ram Bansal son of Shri Bhagat
Ram, resident of Khaddar Bhandar Street, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
11. Consumer Complaint No.966 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Gurcharan Kaur w/o Balwant Singh, Near Dharamshala, Mirza Patti,
Panjgrain Kalan, Faridkot, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
12. Consumer Complaint No.968 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Ritu Arora D/o Shri Gopal Krishan r/o H.No.2383/11, Mohalla Purana
Lal Bagh, Kacha Patiala through Special Power of Attorney holder
Shri Tarsem Garg s/o Shri Hukam Chand, resident of H.No.19342,
Street No.4, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 6
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
13. Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Poonam Goyal w/o Shri Pardeep Kumar R/o Ward No.7, Near
Jawahar Chakki, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
14. Consumer Complaint No.972 of 2017
Date of institution : 08.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Harvinder Kaur w/o S. Gurnam Singh Rekhi R/o H.No.A-102,
Ganpati Enclave, Dabwali Road, Bathinda through its Special Power
of Attorney holder Gurnam Singh Rekhi s/o Shri Sujan Singh Rekhi
R/o H.No.A-102, Ganpati Enclave, Dabwali Road, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 7
15. Consumer Complaint No.1025 of 2017
Date of institution : 28.11.2017
Reserved on : 30.01.2018
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Pankaj Beri s/o Vinod Kumar Beri R/o Street No.3, Last Chowk,
Sunder Nagar, Abohar, Fazilka, Punjab.
.......Complainant
Versus
Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda through its Executive Officer,
Bathinda, Punjab.
........Opposite Party
Consumer Complaints under Section 17
(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Shri Rishab Gupta, Advocate. For the opposite party : Shri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
All the above referred 15 Consumer Complaints are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these complaints. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017.
2. The complainant, Sunil Singla, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "C.P. Act") for the issuance of following directions to the opposite party:-
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 8
i) to refund the amount of ₹27,00,000/- deposited by him along with interest @ 36% per month (as charged from the allottee) from the date of deposit till the date of realization;
ii) to pay ₹10,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony; and
iii) to pay ₹1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
Facts of the Complaint:
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that in the year 2010 the opposite party invited applications for the allotment of flats to be constructed by it in Manmohan Kalia Enclave, Transport Nagar, Goniana Road, Bathinda. The opposite party in its brochure has offered to general public 96 multistoreyed Apartments and 2 Pent Homes, which included facilities like walled community living, earthquake resistant structure, convenient shopping, Community Centre/Club House, ample covered parked space, fire safety, eco- friendly rain water harvesting, landscaped lush green lawns and surface parking for visitors etc. The flats offered were three bedrooms, drawing room, dining room, kitchen, store, three toilets, three balconies and car garage at Ground Floor etc. Opposite party also undertook to further provide other facilities like lift facility, water supply, drainage, sewage, street lighting, sanitary, garbage collection, roads and other civic amenities. It is averred that the possession of the flats will be handed over within two and a half years. It is further averred that in pursuance of the above said facts the complainant moved an application No.256 to the opposite party Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 9 for allotment of one HIG Flat and deposited ₹2,60,000/-, vide Bank draft No.759575 dated 29.11.2010 along with the said application. The brochure had been sold by the opposite party at the rate of ₹100/-, each, which included the application form. The cost of the Flats and Parking Fee contained in the said brochure are as under:-
Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor 6th Floor Cost ₹26 25.80 lakh 25.60 25.40 25.20 25 lakh lakh lakh lakh lakh Car Parking At Stilt Car Car Car Car Car Facility floor Garage at Garage Garage Garage Garage Ground at at at at Floor Ground Ground Ground Ground Floor Floor Floor Floor Further 4% extra cess of total flat cost was to be charged for each flat at the time of deposit of 1/4th of total flat cost. No other cost or charges were payable. It was also mentioned that no interest was payable on the Earnest Money Deposited (hereinafter to be called as 'EMD') but there is no clause in the allotment letter or brochure that if there is delay in handing over the possession by the Trust the allottees are not entitled to interest on the paid amount. It is also not mentioned that separate charges were payable for the stilt parking. It is further averred that the Chief Town Planner, Department of Local Government, Punjab on 12.7.2010, vide letter No.CTP(LG)- 2010-828 accorded technical approval to the proposed layout plan and flat design subject to:-
a) approval of building design of proposed community centre;
b) exhibiting in the layout plan sewerage disposal arrangement and rain water harvesting; and Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 10
c) exhibiting in building plan provision of necessary Fire-
fighting equipment as per National Building Code of India NBC-2005 norms.
It is further averred that the complainant being successful in the draw of lots held on 13.12.2010 was allotted Flat No.D-22 situated on the sixth floor of the above mentioned scheme for a total value of ₹25,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% amounting to ₹1,00,000/-, vide allotment letter No.958 dated 27.4.2011. Thereafter the complainant paid the amount of ₹24,40,000/- in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- already deposited. In fact, the total sale consideration of the flat including the expenses, which have been mentioned by the opposite party in the brochure and the allotment letter comes to ₹27,00,000/- and the complainant deposited the full and final amount of the Flat as per the Schedule within time. In the brochure two modes of payment of remaining amount were provided, which read as under:-
"5. Schedule/Mode of payment:
a) Option : The Applicant is to mention clearly on the application form an option out of the following Schemes:-
Self-Financing Scheme 2.1/2 years Partially Self-Financing Scheme 5 years." It was also one of the terms that after the draw of lots allottee will require to pay as under:-
i) Within 30 days of allotment-25% of the cost minus the initial deposit i.e. amount of earnest money deposited with application.Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 11
ii) Balance 75% amount is to be paid in 5 half yearly equal instalments under Self-Financing Scheme. In case of earlier completion of Flat, the balance amount shall be payable at the time of offer of possession or 12% interest on the remaining payments will be chargeable.
iii) In case of Partially Self Financing Scheme the allottee can opt for the payment of (ii) balance 75% amount in 10 half yearly instalments. In such case initially 5 half yearly instalments are to be paid before handing over of the possession of the flat without any interest and the remaining amount will be paid with 12% interest on reducing basis.
iv) Any increase in the cost found during construction will be payable before taking possession of the flat.
It is further averred that as per clause 7 of the brochure and the allotment letter too if an allottee fails to pay any instalment on due date, penal interest as tabulated below will be charged for the delayed period:-
Delay 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 6 month
Month month month month month month
Penal @ @ @ @ @ @ 36% + 20%
Interest 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% more
penalty
It is further averred that beyond the delay of 6 months, the total amount paid till then shall be forfeited by the opposite party. However, under special circumstances or in cases of genuine hardships interest @ 36% beyond 6-month with an additional penalty Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 12 of 20% shall be chargeable. The complainant had applied under Self-Financing Scheme but it is incorrectly mentioned in the complaint as Partially Self-Financing Scheme. Under this Scheme, remaining 75% amount i.e. ₹19,95,000/- was required to be paid in 5 equal half yearly instalments. The complainant has paid ₹4,90,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. It was also one of the conditions that first five instalments will be without interest. The complainant had paid all the instalments within time frame as fixed by the opposite party. There was no default in making payments. The entire sale consideration was deposited by the complainant. However, the opposite party failed to complete the construction of the flats; to provide the amenities as mentioned in the Agreement; and to deliver possession of the flat within the stipulated period of two and a half years i.e. upto 27.10.2013. Clause 10 of the brochure regarding handing over possession reads as under:-
"10. Handing Over Possession The allottee shall be entitled to take possession of the flat in semi-finished condition after he has completed all formalities and paid all dues payable upto that date and finished/executed all documents as required/prescribed. The flat will be offered on "as is where is basis" after obtaining possession certificate from the Trust Engineer. The tentative period for completion of flat is estimated as two years and six months. No claim/complaint shall be entertained after the possession is Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 13 accepted by the allottee with respect to construction of flat. No sale deed will be executed till entire payment is made."
It is further averred that the complainant received letter No.468 dated 21.2.2014 from the opposite party in which the opposite party offered to deliver possession of the flat in semi-furnished condition. It was also mentioned in that letter that the work of lift etc. is still going on and in case the complainant wants to take over the possession of the flat in that condition he can approach the opposite party. After receiving the said letter the complainant visited the site to find out the status of the construction of the flats, which was still going on and there was no provision for water supply, drainage, sewage, street lighting, sanitary, garbage collection, roads and other civil amenities at the spot. Moreover, there was no provision for electricity, fire-fighting, lift and other relevant amenities as mentioned in the allotment letter and as published in the advertisement and the brochure; which were necessary requirements before taking possession. Even on the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.8.2017 the above mentioned amenities were not available and the flats were not complete in many respects. So the question of taking the possession would not arise. This fact is alleged to have been admitted by the opposite party in its letters dated 3.4.2014 and 15.9.2014. Even the opposite party has been admitting the factum of non-entitlement regarding charging of interest from the flat owners due to non-completion of the work as for that reason the possession is not being taken. It is further averred that the opposite party had also passed resolution dated 7.11.2013 in this regard. The opposite Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 14 party also charged ₹1,00,000/- along with interest for stilt parking from the flat owners including the complainant. The same has been collected towards the cost of the flat, which is against the terms and conditions of the brochure. The complainant has already deposited tentative cost of ₹25,00,000/- for the flat in question. In the brochure, the opposite party has mentioned that the car parking price includes in the price of the flat already mentioned. As such, the opposite party cannot ask for extra charges for providing stilt parking instead of a car garage. The complainant is accordingly entitled to proportionate reduction in the total cost of the flat as the opposite party is not providing garage but only stilt parking is being provided, which is a common area for which opposite party cannot charge separately. It is further averred that stilt parking is available for only 40 cars whereas there are total 96 flats and 2 Pent Homes. The opposite party has failed to make proper provision of car parking for all the flat owners/allottees. It is further averred that the date of payment of last instalment and the date of delivery of possession was 27.10.2013. However, the opposite party failed to do so. The opposite party in its letter dated 30.5.2017 stated that certain facilities were left out in the flats and requested the complainant to visit the site in question to get the same rectified. It can be safely inferred that the flat in question is still not complete after a period of 7 years and the opposite party is just trying to fill up its lacuna at this late stage. There is delay in execution of the project and completing the same in time. As per clause 6 of the allotment letter, any enhancement communicated to the allottee needs to be deposited Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 15 within 6 months of last instalment and before taking possession. The complainant had paid the due amount on 24.10.2013 whereas the last instalment was to be paid before 27.10.2013. As per clause 15 and 16 of the allotment letter, Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 and Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization and Land Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 and its amendments along with Government instructions issued from time to time and provisions as contained in the Information Brochure shall be enforceable against the opposite party. Sub-clause 9 of the amendment made in Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, notified vide No.GSR46/PA-4/1922/S.73/Amd.(6)/2016 dated 28.6.2016 is reproduced as under:-
"In case the Trust fails to handover the possession of sold/allotted plot/property to the buyer/allottee within the stipulated time mentioned in the allotment letter because of some court case or otherwise, it shall communicate the same within a period of 90 days of the allotment/auction to the said buyer/allottee, who may make an application for taking his earnest money or any other amount deposited with the trust back within a period of three months from the date of such intimation."
The said reference/amendment has never been communicated to the complainant and it appears that the opposite party was not in a position to hand over the possession within the stipulated period and for that reason it is deficient in service. It is further averred that actually the possession has never been handed over. However, Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 16 Identical issue had arisen before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda, regarding the same very project in which the opposite party was directed to pay ₹10,000/-, as monthly rent to the allottees, as they failed to deliver the possession on time. The appeal filed by the opposite party against that order has been dismissed by this Commission and thereafter the matter went upto Hon'ble National Commission where all the facts regarding resolution and delivery have been discussed in detail. Hon'ble National Commission has also dismissed the revision petition filed by the opposite party. Therefore, the finding that the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question has attained finality. In fact, the Chief Vigilance Officer was appointed to look into the irregularities in the construction of the flats in dispute but the construction has still not been completed. The Vigilance Officer appointed by the Local Self-Government in his enquiry has found the following irregularities:-
i) The firefighting system has not been installed in the flats.
ii) The lifts are not under working condition.
iii) In the brochure issued there is mention of a car garage
but at the spot there is no car garage but common
parking.
iv) The floor of the stilt parking has not been
constructed/finished properly.
v) There is no harvesting well at the spot for rain water.
vi) The earthing pits have not been covered.
vii) The lightening arrester has not been installed.
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 17
viii) Small wooden pieces are used in the making of the frame of doors and windows. Apart from this the quality of the wooden doors is also not upto the mark.
ix) There is not working slab in the kitchen and neither tiles are installed. The work of toilets is also not complete.
x) In order to reach the floor above the parking floor the required head way which should be 7 feet 6 inches was not there.
There is no proper shopping complex, park, club and other facilities. The opposite party has been giving false promises. Not only this, the project was completed in a shabby manner. The complainant made reference to various photographs showing the condition of the flats. Even after 7 years of inviting applications till date the flats are not complete. Neither any allottee occupied the flat. The opposite party has failed to provide basic amenities as well as possession. By failing to complete the project by 27.10.2013 the opposite party has failed to fulfil its undertaking/commitment. Hence alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to it.
Defence of the opposite party:
4. In pursuance of notice opposite party appeared and filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the present complainant has claimed refund of the amount. The refund is not permissible as per the terms of the Agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 18 opposite party. Allotment letter has already been issued. The construction is in full swing. The case is required to be referred to the Arbitrator in case of any dispute. As per the allotment letter, the flat was sold under "Self-Financing & Partially-Self Financing Scheme" on "as is where is" basis and this condition was duly accepted by the complainant. Remedy for violation of the Agreement only lies before the Civil Court and not in Consumer Fora. It is the admission of the complainant that the opposite party has written to him to take over the possession. Some of the allottees have already taken the possession under the same very scheme.
The complainant was offered possession, vide letter dated 21.2.2014 that construction of the flats has been completed and the process for completing the lift etc. is being finalized. It was further provided that the tentative period for completion of flat is estimated as two years and six months. It was made clear that the allottee shall be entitled to take possession of the flat in semi-finished condition after completion of formalities by him. Since the flat is on "as is where is"
basis, possession certificate is required to be taken from the Trust Engineer only but the complainant has refused to take the possession of the flat. All the facilities have been provided, however, the possession of the flat was not intentionally accepted by the complainant. On merits, the allotment of the flat and the receipt of the payment, in the manner stated in the complaint, have been admitted. Para No.2 of the complaint has been admitted that as per condition 10 of the brochure, the possession of the flat in semi- finished condition was to be made within the tentative period for Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 19 completion of flats estimated as two years and six months. Denying all other averments made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
Evidence of the parties:
5. To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18. On the other hand, opposite party filed affidavit of its Assistant Trust Engineer as Ex.OP-A and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6.
Contentions of the Parties
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the record of the case carefully. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the parties.
7. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite party has been unable to hand over the possession within the stipulated period of two and a half year, which was required to be delivered by 27.10.2013. Even after the lapse of considerable long period the flats in question have not been completed in all respects. There are many deficiencies such like sewerage, non-functioning of lifts, electricity and roads etc. The same have been affirmed by the vigilance enquiry in which it is also mentioned that there are deficiencies in the construction work even upto 21st of March 2017. The letter written by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab Municipal Bhawan, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh to Executive Officer, Improvement Trust, Bathinda, Ex.C-17, clearly indicates that Chief Vigilance Officer, Local Government inspected the flats constructed by the Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 20 opposite party and found a number of deficiencies in the same, which have been mentioned in the letter itself. A reference was made by the learned counsel for the complainant to various photographs, Ex.C-18, which indicate pitiable condition of the construction of the flats and deficiencies are writ large, which are apparently visible. It was further argued that after the lapse of more than approximately 7 years the flats in question are still not complete nor the same have been occupied by any allottee. The opposite party failed to provide the basic amenities as well as the possession of the flat till date. The opposite party still does not have any occupancy/completion certificate which further proves the fact that the flats in question are not in habitable condition. The basic amenities required for human living are absent at the site in question. It was further argued that the finding that the opposite party had failed to deliver the possession of the flat in question has attained finality as the revision petition filed by the opposite party in some other case in respect of the same very project was dismissed by the Hon'ble National Commission. Similar averments have been made in the written arguments as have been made by the complainant in the complaint. In these circumstances, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the delay in delivery of possession as stipulated in the Agreement/Allotment letter itself is deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant and other allottees are not bound to take possession of the said incomplete flats and, therefore, they are entitled to refund of the amount deposited by them along Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 21 with interest at the same rate, which the opposite party is charging i.e. 36% per month along with compensation of ₹10,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony and ₹1,00,000/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the following judgments:-
i) III(2016) CPJ 16 (SC) "K.A. NAGAMANI v. HOUSING COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD"
ii) IV(2005) CPJ 183 (NC) "BULANI BUILDING CO. & ANR. v. PRADEEP GOVINDAM & ANR."
iii) III(2002) CPJ 166 (NC) "PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v. JANAK RAJ".
8. On the other hand, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the flats are complete in all respects. Sewerage, Electricity, water supply, roads, parks, lifts, street lights and all other facilities, as promised in the brochure, have been provided at the spot. However, some deficiencies were there, which have also been removed. The flats are complete in all respects and possession can be delivered. It was further argued that the allottees including the complainant opted for the Partial Self- Financing Scheme and Self-Financing Scheme. Under the Partial Self-Financing Scheme, the allottees were to pay the amount by way of 10 half yearly instalments i.e. upto 27.4.2016. It was further argued that the complainant was offered the possession of semi- finished flat as per clause 10 but the same was refused. The offer for possession, vide letter dated 21.2.2014 was as per clause 10 and Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 22 thereafter the complainant was again offered possession, vide letters dated 30.5.2017 and 4.10.2017. It was further argued that some of the allottees filed complaints before the District Forum, Bathinda seeking compensation in the delay in handing over the possession of the flat. The District Forum, Bathinda had directed to pay compensation @ ₹10,000/- per month from 27.10.2013 till the date of delivery of actual possession of the flats on completion of basic amenities, vide order dated 29.2.2016. The order of the District Forum was affirmed by this Commission, vide order dated 24.11.2016. Hon'ble National Commission in the Revision Petition filed by the opposite party, vide order dated 21.4.2017, directed that if the Trust offers the possession of the flats in the condition, they were to be available under the scheme with basic amenities like; sewerage, drinking water supply, lift, electricity, the Trust shall not be liable to pay to the complainant/allottee the compensation as directed by the District Forum after the expiry of the two months of the date of said offer. It was further argued that in compliance of the said order of the Hon'ble National Commission the works have now been completed and the flats are ready to be occupied. It was further argued that there is no clause for refund of the amount under the terms and conditions of the allotment letter/brochure. Moreover, the opposite party is a Public Body and custodian of public funds. The flats have been constructed under the Partial Self-Financing Scheme and Self-financing Scheme and if the refund is allowed the entire building shall become redundant and the financial loss incurred on the construction of these flats shall be irrecoverable. It Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 23 was further argued that the Trust cannot recover the expenditure of about ₹25 Crores incurred on the construction of these flats. Reference was made to the latest photographs of the site, which were clicked on 12.1.2018 and it was argued that the same clearly proves completion of each and every work i.e. internal completion of flats, landscaping, rain harvesting system, water supply, fire safety, lifts etc. It was prayed that there was no merit in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions:
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides.
10. Admittedly the complainant was allotted Flat No.D-22 on the sixth floor of the said project for a value of ₹25,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,000/- in the draw held by the opposite party on 13.12.2010 in respect of which allotment letter No.958 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, was issued to him. It is also admitted fact that the complainant paid the total sale consideration of ₹27,00,000/- as stipulated in the Brochure, Ex.C-1 and the receipts regarding the same have been annexed on the record as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10. Admittedly as per clause 10 of the Brochure, reproduced above, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within two years and six months i.e. upto 27.10.2013. However, the opposite party was not in a position to deliver the possession of the said flat along with all the amenities as promised in the brochure upto the date of filing of the present complaint. The opposite party, vide letter dated 30.5.2017, Ex.C-15, Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 24 informed the complainant that certain facilities are left out in the flats and requested him to visit the site in question to get the same rectified. The Chief Vigilance Officer, Local Self-Government (Vigilance Cell) was appointed to look into the irregularities in the construction of the flats in dispute, who after enquiry found following irregularities, vide his report, Ex.C-17:-
i) The firefighting system has not been installed in the flats.
ii) The lifts are not under working condition.
iii) In the brochure issued there is mention of a car garage
but at the spot there is no car garage but common
parking.
iv) The floor of the stilt parking has not been
constructed/finished properly.
v) There is no harvesting well at the spot for rain water.
vi) The earthing pits have not been covered.
vii) The lightening arrester has not been installed.
viii) Small wooden pieces are used in the making of the frame of doors and windows. Apart from this the quality of the wooden doors is also not upto the mark.
ix) There is no working slab in the kitchen and neither tiles are installed. The work of toilets is also not complete.
x) In order to reach the floor above the parking floor the required head way which should be 7 feet 6 inches was not there.
11. The opposite party vide its letter dated 13.6.2017, Ex.OP-4, addressed to Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 25 Department, Punjab, Chandigarh regarding non-completion of flats by it, has sent progress report to him and the relevant part of the same, when translated into English, reads as under:-
i) The lifts of the flats are in working condition at the spot.
However, it has been brought into notice by the Company that due to fluctuation in the voltage a difficulty is being faced in operating the lifts and PSPCL is being coordinated for removing this difficulty. The work of annual maintenance of the same has been allotted to Thyssen Krupp Co.
ii) Necessary repairs of the doors and windows due to closure of the flats for more than four years have been carried out.
iii) ............
iv) ............
v) ............
vi) The sewer of these flats has been connected with the
main line of the sewer scheme, whose disposal is arranged in the Dairy Development Scheme of the Trust. The work of installation of STP is also being started shortly in the Dairy Scheme itself after taking land from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda. Internal sewer lines of the flats have been completely cleaned. The main sewer of the Scheme has also been got cleaned from the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board and the sewer is working smoothly at the spot.
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 26.........................
........................
Besides the above, it is brought to the notice that apart from the construction of the flats, the following works are also in operation at the spot:-
i. The work of fire-fighting has been allotted and approximately 70% work is complete at the spot. ii. Approximately 60% work of rainwater harvesting is complete."
A perusal of the above reveals that upto 13.6.2017 the lifts were not functioning properly due to fluctuation in the voltage. The work of installation of S.T.P. is being started shortly after taking land from the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda in the Dairy Scheme itself. A further perusal of the same reveals that work of firefighting is complete upto 70% and approximately 60% work of rainwater harvesting is also complete. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that all the facilities have been provided at the spot even in the month of June 2017 much after the passing of the judgment dated 21.4.2017 by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.96 to 109 of 2017 (Town Improvement Trust, Bathinda v. Kapil Bansal and others), a copy of which has been annexed as Ex.OP-1.
12. Even the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Self- Government, Punjab Municipal Bhawan, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh, vide order dated 4.5.2017, Ex.C-17, suspended a number of officers/officials of the opposite party; named in that order, for irregularities in the construction of the flats; over-sighting the Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 27 condition of the construction of the flats; issuance of Completion Certificate of the flats and for carrying out the draw of lots without doing the demand survey. Therefore, a perusal of the order, Ex.C17, it becomes clear that the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Self-Government itself admits that there are irregularities in the construction of the flats and the same is incomplete even upto 4.5.2017.
13. A perusal of sub-clause 9 of the amendment made in Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983, notified vide No.GSR46/PA-4/1922/S.73/Amd.(6)/2016 dated 28.6.2016, reproduced above, reveals that in case the Trust fails to handover the possession of the sold/allotted plot/property to the buyer/allottee within the stipulated time mentioned in the allotment letter because of some court case or otherwise, it shall communicate the same within a period of 90-days of the allotment/auction to the said buyer/allottee, who may make an application for taking his earnest money or any other amount deposited with the Trust back within a period of three months from the date of such intimation. In the present case the complaint itself is a notice to the Trust that the applicant is asking for the refund of the amount deposited by him and, as such, the opposite party is required to refund the same as it is unable to deliver the possession on the date of notification i.e. 28.6.2016. Otherwise also, this Commission in the same very project in FA No.460 of 2016 decided on 24.11.2016 (Town Improvement Trust v. Suresh Kumar Goyal) has already recorded a finding that there were deficiencies Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 28 and the flats were incomplete and that the complainant was not bound to take possession in such a case. Rather in those circumstances, the complainant had sought compensation for the delay in possession which has been awarded at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month by the District Forum, Bathinda which has been upheld by this Commission and further upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above mentioned Revision Petition, vide Ex.OP1. Moreover, no completion or partial completion certificate in respect of the flats in question has been placed on record by the opposite party. In view of the above factual position it is held that the flats are still incomplete in many respects even after the lapse of more than 7 years and are not in habitable condition. The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for the delivery of possession of the flat in-spite of making full payment towards the price of the flat. This act and conduct of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on its part. No purpose would be served by ordering delivery of possession of the flat to the complainant and as such, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him.
14. The C.P. 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 full price to the opposite party with the hope to get the possession of the Flat in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite party made false Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 29 statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of flat and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite party 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 party, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. 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 flat booked. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite party in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of developing/building the plots/flats. The opposite party 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. In addition to that he is also entitled to the compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by him on account of the betrayal by the opposite party in shattering his hope of getting the flat by waiting for all this period. In these circumstances, the complainant deserves suitable compensation. Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 30
15. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹27,00,000/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
16. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.867 of 2017:
17. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide application No.15 dated 15.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and she was allotted Flat No.D18 on the 5th Floor, vide allotment letter No.951 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,20,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹25,40,600/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-10, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹28,00,600/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 31 ₹28,00,600/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
18. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹28,00,600/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
19. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.868 of 2017:
20. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Receipt No.6 dated 9.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.C10 on the 3rd Floor, vide allotment letter No.937 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,60,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,02,400/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 32 amount of ₹25,07,055/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹27,67,055/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹27,67,055/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
21. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹27,67,055/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
22. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.869 of 2017:
23. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.185 dated 13.11.2010, Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 33 along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.E-8 on the Second Floor, vide allotment letter No.918 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,80,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,03,200/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹27,04,100/-, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹29,64,100/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹29,64,100/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
24. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹29,64,100/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 34
25. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.870 of 2017:
26. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.112 dated 13.11.2010, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.D19 on the Fifth Floor, vide allotment letter No.953 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,20,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,50,494/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-14, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹29,10,494/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹29,10,494/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
27. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 35
i) to refund the amount of ₹29,10,494/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
28. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.871 of 2017:
29. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.32 dated 16.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.D-23 on the Sixth Floor, vide allotment letter No.956 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹24,40,000/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹27,00,000/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹27,00,000/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 36 No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
30. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹27,00,000/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
31. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.904 of 2017:
32. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.599 dated 11.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.C-18 on the Fifth Floor, vide allotment letter No.955 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,20,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,800/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,37,650/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-16, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 37 consideration to the tune of ₹28,97,650/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹28,97,650/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
33. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹28,97,650/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
34. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.962 of 2017:
35. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.756 dated 13.11.2010 along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.B16 on the Fourth Floor, vide allotment letter No.947 dated Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 38 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,40,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,01,600/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,62,390/-, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹31,13,146/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹31,13,146/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
36. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹31,13,146/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
37. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 39Consumer Complaint No.963 of 2017:
38. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.806 dated Nil, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.A-16 on the Fourth Floor, vide allotment letter No.944 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,40,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,01,600/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹27,43,770/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-13, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹30,03,770/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹30,03,770/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
39. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹30,03,770/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 40
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
40. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.965 of 2017:
41. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.7 dated 4.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.A22 on the Sixth Floor, vide allotment letter No.962 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,17,775/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-15, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹28,77,775/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹28,77,775/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 41
42. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹28,77,775/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
43. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.966 of 2017:
44. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.206 dated 12.11.2010, Ex.C2, along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and she was allotted Flat No.A-7 on the Second Floor, vide allotment letter No.919 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-3, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,80,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,03,200/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹24,20,000/-, vide receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-9, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹27,83,200/-. This fact is also clear from the letter of opposite party dated 22.10.2013, Ex.C-10, in which details of Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 42 payments received by it have been given. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹27,83,200/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
45. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹27,83,200/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
46. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.968 of 2017:
47. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application dated Nil along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and she was allotted Flat No.B-18 on the Fifth Floor, vide allotment letter No.950 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 43 consideration of ₹25,20,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,00,800/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,63,237/-, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹29,23,237/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹29,23,237/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
48. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹29,23,237/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
49. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 44Consumer Complaint No.970 of 2017:
50. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.282 dated Nil and deposited along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.C4 on the First Floor, vide allotment letter No.915 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale consideration of ₹26,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,04,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹28,74,680/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹28,74,680/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
51. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹28,74,680/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 45
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
52. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.972 of 2017:
53. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application dated Nil along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and she was allotted Flat No.A-4 on the First Floor, vide allotment letter No.912 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale consideration of ₹26,00,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,04,000/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹23,40,681/-, vide receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹26,00,681/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹26,00,681/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017. Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 46
54. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹26,00,681/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
55. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Consumer Complaint No.1025 of 2017:
56. In this case the complainant applied for the allotment of the flat in the said Scheme, vide Application No.110 along with Bank Draft for ₹2,60,000/- and he was allotted Flat No.C-15 on the Fourth Floor, vide allotment letter No.945 dated 27.4.2011, Ex.C-2, for a total sale consideration of ₹25,40,000/- with an additional cost of ₹1,00,000/- for stilt parking and cess at 4% i.e. ₹1,01,600/-. Thereafter the complainant deposited the balance sale amount of ₹26,59,800/-, vide cheques/receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13, in addition to the amount of ₹2,60,000/- deposited earlier at the time of application and as such, the complainant had paid the total sale consideration to the tune of ₹29,19,800/-. Rest of the averments made in this complaint are same as have been made in CC No.728 of 2017. The Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 47 complainant sought refund of the amount of ₹29,19,800/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party took same stand in its written reply as has been taken by it in CC No.728 of 2017. Learned counsel for both the sides advanced similar arguments as have been advanced in CC No.728 of 2017.
57. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.728 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite party:-
i) to refund the amount of ₹29,19,800/- deposited by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment;
ii) to pay ₹50,000/-, as compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony including litigation expenses.
58. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
59. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copies 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 February 15, 2018 Bansal Consumer Complaint No.728 of 2017 48