Manpreet Kaur vs Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 29 February, 2024

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Manpreet Kaur vs Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 29 February, 2024

1 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint No. : 73 of 2023 Date of Institution : 17.08.2023 Date of Decision : 29.02.2024 1] Smt. Manpreet Kaur, aged 49 years W/o Sh. Paramjit Singh, 2] Sh. Paramjit Singh, Aged 49 years S/o Sh. Sucha Singh, Both Residents of Flat No.11206, Tower COD 1/G-1, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. Present Address: Plot No.1265, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1265C, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308, through its Director Amandeep Singla.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    74 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Vivek Badhwar, aged 38 years S/o Sh. Sushil Badhwar, 2] Shikha Badhwar, aged 39 years W/o Sh. Vivek Badhwar, Both Residents of Flat No.1079, 1st Floor, Tower COD2-1, (Elina Floors), City of Dreams-2, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.               :    75 of 2023
                                Date of Institution         :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision            :   29.02.2024

1] Harsharan Kaur, aged 41 years,W/o Sh. Daljit Singh, 2] Daljit Singh, aged 44 years, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, Both Residents of Flat No.9213, Tower COD 1/G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.               :    76 of 2023
                                Date of Institution         :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision            :   29.02.2024

1] Dharminder Singh Buttar, aged 62 years S/o Late Sh. S.S. Buttar, 2] Jatinder Singh Buttar, aged 57 years W/o Sh. Dharminder Singh Buttar, Both Residents of Flat No.4211, Tower G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainants.

2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1265C, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308, through its Director Amandeep Singla.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    77 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

Hasmita Sawhney, aged 37 years D/o Sh. Jagjit Sawhney, Resident of Flat No.9212, Tower COD 1/G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainant.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    78 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Abhinav, aged 39 years S/o Sh. Sant Prasad, 2] Priyanka, aged 33 years W/o Sh. Abhinav, Both permanently residing at House No.32/1, Bank Colony, Mani Majra, Chandigarh - 160101.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    79 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Kamalpreet Singh, aged 42 years S/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh, 2] Paramjeet Kalsi, aged 40 years W/o Kamalpreet Singh, Both Residents of House No.5185A, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh - 160022, Presently residing at Flat No.12213, 12th Floor, City of Dreams-I, Tower G-2, Sector 116, Landran Kharar road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    80 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Ramel Singh Rana, aged 41 years S/o Late Sh. Ranjit Singh Rana, 2] Vinay Kumari, aged 35 years, W/o Sh. Ramel Singh Rana, Both Residents of Flat No.11213, Tower COD-1/G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainants.

2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1265C, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308, through its Director Amandeep Singla.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                 Complaint No.             :    81 of 2023
                                 Date of Institution       :   17.08.2023
                                 Date of Decision          :   29.02.2024

1] Gurkaran Deep Singh, aged 34 years S/o Sh. Bajinder Pal, 2] Ravneet Kaur, aged 30 years W/o Sh. Gurkaran Deep Singh, Both Residents of Flat No.10210, 10th Floor, City of Dreams 1, Tower G-2, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                 Complaint No.             :    82 of 2023
                                 Date of Institution       :   17.08.2023
                                 Date of Decision          :   29.02.2024

1] Paramveer Singh Gill, aged 38 years S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh Gill, 2] Rajwinder Kaur, aged 38 years W/o Paramveer Singh Gill, Both Residents of Flat No.1016, 1st Floor, Tower COD-1, City of Dreams 1, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1265C, Sector 82, JLPL, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308, through its Director Amandeep Singla.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    83 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

Mukta Sareen, aged 37 years W/o Sh. Vivek Anand R/o Flat No.9211, Tower COD-1/G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.

....Complainant.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :    84 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   17.08.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

Varinder Pal Singh Anand, aged 44 years S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Anand, Resident of Flat No.3163, 3rd Floor, Tower COD-2, (Elina Floors), Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainant.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                 Complaint No.             :    85 of 2023
                                 Date of Institution       :   17.08.2023
                                 Date of Decision          :   29.02.2024

1] Pulkit Sharma, aged 30 years S/o Sh. Sunil Sharma, 2] Mrs. Naina Sharma W/o Sh. Sunil Sharma, Both Residents of Flat No.8206, 8th Floor, City of Dreams 1, Tower G- 1, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                 Complaint No.             :   121 of 2023
                                 Date of Institution       :   01.12.2023
                                 Date of Decision          :   29.02.2024

Mrs. Pooja Garg, W/o Sh. Rohit Jindal, Resident of House No.0080, on Ground Floor, Tower/Block No.COD1 01, in City of Dreams 2, at Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

....Complainant.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                 Complaint No.             :   122 of 2023
                                 Date of Institution       :   01.12.2023
                                 Date of Decision          :   29.02.2024

1] Mr. Manjit Singh, aged 48 years S/o Lt. Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh, 8 2] Mr. Bhupender Kaur W/o Sh. Manjit Singh, Both Residents of Flat No.0084, Ground Floor, Tower COD2 01 (Elina Floors) in City of Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :   123 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   01.12.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Ms. Vandana Mahaan, aged 35 years, W/o Sh. Sahil Mahajan, 2] Mr. Sahil Mahajan, aged 38 years S/o Sh. Sushil Mahajan, Both Residents of Flat No.2091, 2nd Floor, Tower COD2 in City of Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, SAS Nagar, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :   124 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   01.12.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Mr. Amandeep Singh, aged 32 years, S/o Sh. Nachhatar Singh, 2] Ms. Jaswinder Kaur, aged 32 years, W/o Sh. Amandeep Singh, Both Residents of Flat No.0095, Ground Floor, Tower COD2 02, in City of Dreams 2, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :   125 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   01.12.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Mr. Kushal Talwar, aged 36 years S/o Sh. Late Sh. Arun Kumar Talwar, 2] Mrs. Deeksha Talwar, aged 32 years, W/o Sh. Kushal Talar, Both Residents of Flat No.1023, First Floor, City of Dreams, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab - 140307.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                Complaint No.              :   126 of 2023
                                Date of Institution        :   01.12.2023
                                Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024

1] Mr. Kewal Krishan, aged 37 years S/o Sh. Antar Jami, 2] Ms. Richa, W/o Sh. Kewal Krishan, Both Residents of Flat No.1025, 1st Floor, Tower COD1 B in City of Dreams 1, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Mohali, Punjab.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043.

2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

                                    Complaint No.              :   127 of 2023
                                    Date of Institution        :   01.12.2023
                                    Date of Decision           :   29.02.2024


1]       Mr. Tarun Kumar, aged 35 years, S/o Sh. Narotam Singh Pal,
2]       Ms. Kamini Punatu W/o Sh. Tarun Kumar,

Both Residents of Flat No.3003, 3rd Floor, Tower/Block No.COD 1 A, City of Dreams 1, Sector 116, Landran Kharar Road, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Punjab - 140301.

....Complainants.

Versus 1] CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/Director, Earlier Address: Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146, 147 & 148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh - 160043. 2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors, Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.

.....Opposite Parties.

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by :-

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant(s). Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate for opposite party No.1 - CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd.

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2 - M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Brief facts:-

By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid consumer complaints. Since, the issues involved in these complaints, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, therefore, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

2. The aforesaid complaints have been filed by the respective complainants, seeking directions to the opposite parties to provide Occupancy Certificate of building to the complainant(s) and refund 11 maintenance charges in the absence of such Occupancy Certificate and not to charge in future also and also refund Gas Pipe Line charges besides other reliefs claiming provision of lift and one open surface parking, alongwith interest and compensation etc. for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000/- as cost of litigation.

3. However, the facts are being culled from Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2023 titled "Manpreet Kaur & anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." as follows:-

Brief facts

4. The complainants were allotted 3 BHK residential flat No.11206, 11th Floor, Tower G1 in the project of the opposite parties i.e. City of Dreams-1 situated in Sector 116, Mohali, Landran Kharar Road, Near Sante Majra, Kharar, for a total consideration price of ₹37,94,129/- vide allotment letter dated 03.07.2018. Agreement for sale was executed on 03.07.2018, as per Clause 7.1 whereof, possession of the unit was to be delivered on 31.12.2020, and as per Clause 7.2, such possession as to be offered upon obtaining the occupancy certificate from the competent authority by the opposite parties. The possession was offered to the complainant vide Registered Sale Deed dated 20.08.2021. It has been stated that since the opposite parties are not in possession of any Occupancy Certificate/completion certificate, therefore, such a physical possession is illegal and invalid.

5. It has further been stated that the opposite parties even cannot charge maintenance charges from the complainants when they are not in possession of the mandatory Occupancy Certificate/completion certificate of the building and as per Clause 1.11 of the Agreement for Sale dated 03.07.2018, the opposite parties have agreed to pay all outgoings including maintenance charges before transferring of physical possession of the flat to the complainants.

6. It has further been stated that the opposite parties have not yet allotted or provided open on surface parking in view of agreed Clause G, Clause 1.2 (iv), Clause 1.9 and Schedule 'A' of the aforesaid Agreement, which clearly provides that opposite parties have allotted one open on surface parking to the complainants and agreed to give/decide parking number/location at the time of possession of the aforesaid apartment.

7. It has further been stated that as per Clause 4.6(7) of Notification dated 31.12.2019 of The Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, there should have been a provision of one lift in the towered group housing buildings having the capacity for a stretcher to 12 carry an ailing person but the lift installed by the opposite parties in the building does not have enough space to carry an ailing person on the stretcher. It has further been stated that the provision for service lift, which could carry the stretcher, is already there and small lifts in comparison to the space have been installed. It has further been stated that the opposite parties have now installed the Fire System on the staircase, thereby, restricting and obstructing the space to carry stretcher from the stair case in the absence of enough space in the lift and now, an ailing person on a stretcher cannot be carried from both lifts as well as from the stair case.

8. With regard to the charges levied by the opposite parties for Gas Pipe Line, It has further been stated that the expenses for laying such gas pipe line are borne by the Gas Company itself and only the connection charges have to be paid by the complainant and not the entire installation charges whereas the opposite parties have charged for Gas Pipe Line.

9. It has further been stated that all the charges levied by the opposite parties are illegal and invalid charges as the IFMS and SMC i.e. Maintenance Charges) cannot be claimed in the absence of Occupancy Certificate. It has further been stated that the clauses & terms and conditions of the Maintenance Agreement dated 03.07.2018, Annexure C-7, are self contradictory, illegal, entirely one-sided and unfair contract. Reply of opposite party No.1 - Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd.

10. Opposite party No.1 contested the complaint by filing its reply by taking following preliminary objections and on merits also:-

i. that opposite party No.2 is neither a company nor a firm and as such, it is neither juristic person nor a natural person and hence, the same cannot sue or be sued and has wrongly been arrayed in the array of parties, as such, complaint against opposite party No.2 deserves dismissal;

ii. that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary party. iii. that this Commission does not has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint;

iv. that the complaint is not maintainable as there ceases to be relationship of a consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party as the complainant without any precondition took the possession and also got the sale deed executed;

v. that the complaint is barred by limitation;

vi. that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for lack of jurisdiction because as per the terms and conditions 13 of Agreement for Sale dated 03.07.2018, all or any dispute arising or touching upon or in relation to the terms and conditions of the agreement, including the interpretation and validity of the term thereof and respective rights and obligations of the parties, is required to be settled amicably by mutual discussion failing which, the same shall be settled through Adjudicating officer appointed under the Act.

11. However, on merits of the case, opposite party No.1 stated that the complainants booked the flat with the free will after understanding the nature of the project being buyer of the same and the booking of the flat, sale consideration, allotment of the flat, execution of the agreement, is not disputed. It has further been stated that the terms and conditions of the agreement are required to be read in totality and not in isolation, which are binding upon the parties to the complaint. It has further been stated that the date of offer of possession in the Agreement to Sale was subject to various terms and conditions including the timely payment to be made by the complainants and reasonable extension of time for the delivery. It has further been stated that the complainants took the possession vide possession letter dated 14.10.2021, Annexure OP-4, and got executed the registered sale deed on 20.08.2021, Annexure OP-5. It has further been stated that the project has been occupied by many of the residents living therein to their entire satisfaction.

12. It has further been stated that the complainants are trying to avoid their obligation of making due payment towards the building maintenance charges, which they are duty bound to pay as per Agreement to Sale as well as maintenance charges. It has been specifically denied that opposite party No.1 agreed to pay all the outgoing including the maintenance chares till the physical possession has not been transferred to the complainant.

13. It has further been denied that the opposite party charged for surface parking space, in-fact, the amount so received by the opposite party to provide parking space to the complainants, which is as per the RERA Act. It has further been stated that it is incorrect that parking will be considered as common area.

14. It has further been stated that the complainants are bound to pay the due maintenance charges to the opposite parties, who are providing all the necessary facilities, including but not limited to lift, electricity backup, security etc.

15. It has further been stated that as per the duly approved plan, elevators and lifts have been duly installed in the project as per the 14 requirement of the tower and now raising the issue of separate lift for the ailing person is without any lawful base as the lifts/elevators so installed by the opposite parties are sufficient enough to carry stretcher of an ailing person.

16. It has been denied that the possession of the apartment has been delivered without its completion and the project in question is an unauthorized structure. It has been submitted that the project has been completed after getting the due approvals from the concerned departments as per the sanctioned plan. It has further been stated that the building is live-able and safe in its entirety. It has further been stated that the paint work, tile, wooden work, electrical work, frames have been installed in the building with the best of its quality and as per the specification of the structural engineering. It has further been stated that the complainants have never resisted upon the quality of construction of the flat at any point of time. Pleading no deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Short reply of opposite party No.2 - M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

17. In its short reply, opposite party No.2 stated that the complaint is not maintainable qua opposite party No.2 as no legal entity by the name and style of M/s SBP Group is existing and as such, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It has further been stated that even otherwise, opposite party No.1 is an independent corporate body and as per the factual matrix coming out of the complaint, no cause of action has accrued against opposite party No.2 as it is not signatory to any of the documents.

Rejoinder:-

18. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of opposite party No.1.

19. The parties led evidence, in support of their case and also filed written arguments.

20. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of this case, including the written arguments, very carefully.

Findings/Observations of this Commission:-

21. First coming to the objection raised by opposite parties that opposite party no.2 has been wrongly arrayed as necessary party in this complaint and as such the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties, it may be stated here that this objection is devoid of merit, in view of the 15 simple reason from all the documents i.e. Copy of Resolution dated 17.07.2023, Annexure OP-1, allotment letter dated 03.07.2018, Annexure OP-2, Schedule of payment and payment plan attached with the agreement dated 03.07.2018, Annexure OP-2, payment demand letters and receipts, Annexure OP-3 (pages 63 to 94) it is clearly coming out that the same have been issued by opposite parties no.1 and 2, jointly, whereupon the name of opposite party no.2 (SBP) has also been embossed. As such, we are of the considered opinion that opposite party no.2 is also a necessary party to this complaint and in no way, it can be said that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. Therefore, this objection stands rejected. Territorial jurisdiction:-

22. Now we will like to deal with the objection taken by the opposite party no.1 with regard to territorial jurisdiction. It may be stated here that Section 47 (4) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides as under:-

".....47. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,--

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain...."

Bare perusal of the above said provisions of sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 47 (4) of the CPA 2019 abundantly make it very clear that a complaint may be filed at a place, where the opposite party(s) actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. Subsection (c) and (d) of Section 47 (4) of the said Act, further clarifies that the State Commission within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action, wholly or in part arises or the complainant resides or personally works for gain, shall have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint.

It is significant to mention here that in the present case all most all the documents placed on record i.e. brochure, Annexure C-1; Copy of Resolution dated 17.07.2023, Annexure OP-1, allotment letter dated 03.07.2018, Annexure OP-2, Schedule of payment and payment plan attached with the agreement dated 03.07.2018, Annexure OP-2, payment demand letters and receipts, Annexure OP-3 (pages 63 to 94) clearly establish that same have been issued by the opposite parties from their Registered and Corporate Office at SCO No.146-148, 1st Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh-160042, meaning thereby that the opposite parties were actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business from their registered office and corporate office branch office and personally works for gain at Chandigarh. In this view of the matter also, this Commission at Chandigarh has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these complaints in view of Section 47 (4) of CPA, 2019. As such, objection of territorial jurisdiction taken by the opposite party no.1 being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

Complainants are consumers even after taking over of possession and execution of sale deed:-

23. Now coming to the objection taken by opposite party no.1 that since the complainants in all the cases have taken over possession and also executed sale deeds also, as such, they ceased to be consumers, it may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that the complainants are aggrieved of non providing of some amenities like parking, lifts etc. and also non obtaining of occupation certificates in respect of their respective unit.

Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, since the complainants have still some grievances to be redressed qua the project in question, as such, the mere fact of taking over possession and execution of sale deed is not a bar for them to file these complaints, for getting redressal of their remaining grievances, if any. Our this view is fully supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Debashis Sinha v/s M/s R.N.R Enterprise2023 LiveLaw (SC) 92, wherein it was held that the mere fact that possession has been taken over by the consumer cannot forfeit his/her right to claim the services etc. promised by the project proponent. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

"....Now-a-days, flat owners seldom purchase flats with liquid cash. Flats are 4 purchased on the basis of finances being advanced by banks and other financial institutions. Once a flat is booked and the prospective flat owner enters into an agreement for loan, instalments fall due to be paid to clear the 17 debt irrespective of whether the flat is ready for being delivered possession. The usual delays that are associated with construction activities result in undue anxiety, stress, and harassment for which many a prospective flat owner, it is common knowledge, even without the project/flat being wholly complete is left with no other option but to take possession. Whether, upon taking possession, a flat owner forfeits his/her right to claim such services which had been promised but are not provided resulting in deficiency in services is a question that the NCDRC ought to have adverted to. Once the NCDRC arrived at a finding that the respondents were casual in their approach and had even resorted to unfair trade practice, it was its obligation to consider the appellants' grievance objectively and upon application of mind and thereafter give its reasoned decision. If at all, the appellants had not forfeited any right by registration of the sale deeds and if indeed the respondents were remiss in providing any of the facilities/amenities as promised in the brochure/advertisement, it was the duty of the NCDRC to set things right..."

Merits of the case:-

24. It is significant to mention here that admittedly, in all these cases, respective agreements were executed between the parties, in the year 2018. It is also an admitted fact that possession of the respective unit has already been taken over by the respective complainants, as far as back in the years 2021, and also sale deeds have also been executed between the parties. However, perusal of record reveals that the complainants are still aggrieved on the following issues and are seeking following reliefs:-

i. To provide service lift in the tower in question so that in case of any medical emergency, patient can be brought down through it;

ii. To provide one open parking space other than the one already provided, as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement;

iii. To shift the fire hose pipe installed near the stairs to some other area;

iv. To stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the competent authorities and till such time, to make payment of delayed compensation from the promised date of delivery of possession till occupation certificate is received;

Service lift:-

25. First coming to the relief claimed by the complainants qua service lift in the tower in question so that in case of any medical emergency, patient can be brought down through it, it may be stated here this demand made by the complainants on the basis of one notification dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-4 having been issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Town Planning Wing. Before adjudicating this issue, it is significant to mention here that it is an admitted fact that two lifts, in working conditions, are already installed in the tower in question. It is clearly coming out from the said notification that some amendments/additions/modification have been made by the Government of Punjab, which was to come into effect from the date of notification i.e. 31.12.2019. As stated above, in the present cases, buyers' agreement had been executed between the parties in the year 2018. At the same time, in the brochures placed on record, there is nothing on record that over and above these lifts, any extra service lift was promised by the opposite parties to be provided in the tower in question. Under these circumstances, the demand of extra service lift to be provided in the tower in question based on the basis of notification dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-4, especially, when it had been notified after execution of the buyer's agreement, and was to come into effect after 31.12.2019 only, cannot be accepted. However, still in the interest of justice, the opposite parties are directed to provide adequate arrangements like compatible stretcher, wheel chair etc. to cater the needs of the residents of the project, in case of any medical emergency.

One open on surface parking

26. Now coming to the relief claimed qua providing one open parking space other than the one already provided, it may be stated here that it is clearly coming out from Explanation 1.2 (iv) of the Terms of respective agreements that the opposite parties have committed to provide one open on surface parking. It may be stated here that during arguments, it has been argued by counsel for the opposite parties that the complainants have already been provided one covered parking in basement, as such, they are not entitled for second parking in open on surface parking. We do not agree with these arguments because once it has been clearly promised by the opposite parties vide clause 1.2(iv) of the Terms of respective agreements that they will provide one open on surface parking, now they cannot wriggle out of the same and are legally bound to provide the same. By not providing one open on surface parking, the opposite parties are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.

Shifting of fire hose pipe:-

27. Now coming to the relief sought by the complainants directing the opposite parties to shift the fire hose pipe installed near the stairs to some other area, it may be stated here that as stated above, possession of the respective units was taken over by the complainants as far as back in the years 2021 and there is nothing on record that any such objection was ever taken by the complainants at the time of taking possession. On the other hand, it was for the first time, taken in the year 2023, Annexure C-9.

At the same time, the complainants have failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the said fire hose pipes have been installed at the place, other than the designated places, by violating the relevant designs/maps approved by the competent authorities. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, the relief sought for by the complainants in this regard cannot be granted by this Commission.

Maintenance charges:-

28. Now coming to the relief sought by the complainants directing the opposite parties to stop charging maintenance charges till the time, occupation certificate is obtained from the competent authorities, it may be stated here that perusal of the brochure, Annexure C-1 reveals that numerous basic amenities were to be provided at the project site like club house, parks, fire fighting system, water harvesting, power backup, open green spaces, shopping complex, kids play zone, road, electricity, smart security system etc. However, from perusal of contents of these complaints and the reliefs sought for by the complainants and also from the findings/observations narrated above, it can easily be said that the complainants are aggrieved of only non issuance of occupation certificate and non providing of one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement. Be that as it may, though occupation certificate has still not been received by the opposite parties and also one open parking space has not been allocated to the complainants, yet, it should also not be forgotten that the complainants are in possession of their respective units since long and are enjoying the basic facilities/amenities referred to above, and for maintaining and up keeping of those facilities/amenities, the opposite parties would have definitely been spending amount thereupon like payments to sweepers, malis, security guards, salaries to technical persons who are engaged for supply of proper water, electricity, maintaining roads etc. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in mind the principle of fair and equity, if we order the opposite parties to refund 30% of the maintenance charges received by them from all the complainants in these cases that 20 will meet the ends of justice. It is therefore held that the complainants are entitled to get refund of 30% of the maintenance charges paid by them to opposite parties from the date of payment thereof. However, the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till one open parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement is provided and also occupation certificate is received from the competent authorities.

Limitation:-

29. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite party no.1 that since possession of the respective units has already been taken over by the complainants and also sale deeds have been executed as such now these complaints are barred by limitation. It may be stated here that in the present cases, it has been very candidly admitted by opposite party no.1 and has also proved by the complainants that occupation certificate in respect of the units in question has not been obtained from the competent authorities. If that is so, this objection taken by opposite party no.1 is bereft of merit in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Samruddhi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v.

Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction (P) Ltd., (2022) 4 SCC 103, wherein, it was held that continuous failure to obtain occupancy certificate is continuing wrong, therefore, complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

".........Based on these provisions, it is evident that there was an obligation on the respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the relevant charges till the certificate has been provided. The respondent has time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the appellant society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the appellant against the respondent. The NCDRC on 20 August 2014 directed the respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, the NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the respondent has failed to provide the occupancy certificate. Owing to the failure of the respondent to obtain the certificate, there has been a direct impact on the members of the appellant in terms of the payment of higher taxes and water charges to the municipal authority. This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong. The appellants 21 therefore, are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation.........."

Therefore, this objections also stands rejected. Grievance of the complainants not redressed by any Officer appointed by the opposite parties:-

30. Now coming to the objection taken by opposite party no.1 to the effect that since the complainants never approached it for appointment of an Adjudicating Officer for redressal of their grievance and as such these complaints deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone, it may be stated here that this objection also deserves to be rejected out-rightly because perusal of record reveals that the complainants have tried their level best by sending various emails starting from 24.04.2023 followed by emails dated 08.05.2023, 06.05.2023, 24.04.2023, 11.05.2023, 10.05.2023, 08.05.2023, 06.05.2023, Annexure C-9 colly. requesting them to provide service lift, shifting of fire hose pipe form the lift area, to provide one open parking space and to remove some seepage/cracks in the tower, wherein the units in question are located. However, there is nothing on record that the grievances of the complainants were ever redressed by the opposite parties by appointing some Adjudicating Officer in the matter, which had ultimately forced the complainants to file these complaints. In this view of the matter, the complainants were well within their right, to file these consumer complaints and as such, objection taken by opposite party no.1, in this regard stands rejected.

Relief:-

31. For the reasons recorded above, all these complaints bearing Nos.73 of 2023, 74 of 2023, 75 of 2023, 76 of 2023, 77 of 2023, 78 of 2023, 79 of 2023, 80 of 2023, 81 of 2023, 82 of 2023, 83 of 2023, 84 of 2023, 85 of 2023, 121 of 2023, 122 of 2023, 123 of 2023, 124 of 2023, 125 of 2023, 126 of 2023 & 127 of 2023 are partly accepted with costs, against the opposite parties and they are jointly as severally, in each of these complaints, are directed as under:-

i) To provide one open on surface parking space as committed vide clause 1.2(iv) and 1.9 of the agreement to the respective complainants and also to rectify the defects of seepage and cracks, if any, and also to obtain occupation certificate from the competent authorities, within a period of three months (03 months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay to the respective complainant(s), compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the respective complainant(s) 22 against the respective units in question, from the date of default, till realization.

ii) to refund 30% of the maintenance charges already received by them from the respective complainant(s) against their respective units in question, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the entire accumulated amount i.e. 30% of the maintenance charges already received, shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till this amount is refunded. However, it is also made clear that the opposite parties shall continue to charge maintenance charges to the extent of 70% only till compliance of direction given at Sr. No.1 above.

iii) to pay to the complainant(s) lumpsum compensation to the tune of ₹75,000/- (in each case) for mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation to the tune of ₹35,000/- (in each case) to the complainant(s), within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

32. Pending applications, if any, in all these complaints also stands disposed of accordingly.

33. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith and copy thereof be also placed in the connected case files.

34. Files be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.

29.02.2024 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 23 STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.73 of 2023) (Smt. Manpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) Argued by:-

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant(s). Sh. Tushar Arora, Advocate for opposite party No.1 - CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd.

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.2 - M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd.

Dated: 29.02.2024 ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, all these complaints bearing Nos.73 of 2023, 74 of 2023, 75 of 2023, 76 of 2023, 77 of 2023, 78 of 2023, 79 of 2023, 80 of 2023, 81 of 2023, 82 of 2023, 83 of 2023, 84 of 2023, 85 of 2023, 121 of 2023, 122 of 2023, 123 of 2023, 124 of 2023, 125 of 2023, 126 of 2023 and 127 of 2023 have been partly accepted with costs.

        (RAJESH K. ARYA)                 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]
            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT


Ad

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Manpreet Kaur vs Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 29 February, 2024