State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naresh Kumar Saxena vs Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. on 4 January, 2022
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 46 of 2021 Date of Institution : 16.07.2021 Date of Decision : 04.01.2022 Naresh Kumar Saxena s/o Sh. Dina Nath Saxena, resident of House No.118 B-4, Himshikha Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana. Usha Saxena w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Saxena, resident of House No.118 B-4, Himshikha Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, Haryana. ......Appellants/complainants V e r s u s Emerging Valley Private Limited, Corporate Office, SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorsied Signatory. 2nd Address:- Emerging Valley Private Limited, Site Office, ADAB City Centre, Sector 127, Shivalik City, Kharar, District Mohali (Pb.) 140301 Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director, Emerging Valley Private Limited, Corporate Office, SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Kamaljit Singh, Director, Emerging Valley Private Limited, Corporate Office, SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-D, Near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. .....Respondents/opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Present through Video Conferencing :-
Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.J.S. Rattu, Advocate for the respondents.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Feeling aggrieved by order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.248 of 2020 filed by them has been dismissed, the complainants have come up in this appeal.
The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal, as narrated in the impugned order, are given hereunder:-
"..... complainants applied for allotment of a residential flat in the upcoming project of the OPs namely Trinity Homes at Landran-Banur Road, Mohali, for their personal use. The total value of the flat was ₹13,40,000/- and the OPs gave discount to the complainants if the entire sum was deposited in lump sum. Accordingly, the complainants deposited ₹4,50,000/- on 31.1.2013 and ₹6,50,000/- on 1.2.2013. Thereafter, vide letter dated 8.3.2013, OPs provisionally allotted a 2BHK flat, first floor, measuring 610 sq. ft. to the complainants in the above mentioned project. However, the OPs got the sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, SAS Nagar, Mohali for ₹3,70,000/- only wherein the area was mentioned as 535 sq.ft., although they had taken the total sum of ₹11,00,000/-. The complainants alleged OPs had not obtained the necessary permissions from the competent authorities and even failed to provide the basic amenities at site. Left with no alternative, the complainants requested the OPs for refund of the amount paid, but to no avail. The complainants alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the amount alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation. ....."
Since, despite deemed service, none had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.03.2021 The appellants/complainants led evidence in support of their case before the District Commission. However, the District Commission after hearing counsel for the appellants/complainants and going through the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint, while holding as under:-
"....We are of the view that the present sale deed was executed with the agreement of both the parties and the sale deed clearly mentioned that the flat in question was free from all sorts of encumbrances and the complainants were duly aware of the facts of the above sale deed. More so, the sale deed even today is standing in the name of complainant No.2 and the same has not been cancelled, therefore, the order of refund of the amount, as prayed for by the complainants, cannot be passed by this Commission.
So far as the allegation of the complainants with regard to not taking the requisite permissions by the OPs from the concerned authorities and lack of basic amenities at site is concerned, the complainants have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the same. The photographs (Annexure C-4) annexed by the complainants do not show the date when the same were clicked. These photographs even do not anywhere show that they actually relate to the project/flat in question.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs...."
Hence this appeal.
Alongwith this appeal, miscellaneous application bearing no. 467 of 2021 has also been filed by the appellants, for placing on record photographs of the project site, Annexure A-2. Reply to this application has not been filed by the respondents inspite of fact that adequate opportunities have been given for that purpose.
We have heard the contesting parties on this application and are of the considered opinion that the additional documents i.e. photographs (Annexure A-2), sought to be placed on record are material one, and reliance can also be placed thereon, to come to a definite conclusion in this case, over and above the other documents already on record. As such, this application is allowed and the additional documents i.e. photographs (Annexure A-2) are ordered to be placed on record. This application stands disposed of, accordingly.
Now coming to the merits of this case; we have heard Counsel for the parties; gone through the material available on the record; and are of the considered opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
It is evident from the record that the appellants had purchased a residential unit in the project in question from the respondents, for total sale consideration of Rs.13.40 lacs. An amount of Rs.4.50 lacs was paid by the appellants to the respondents on 31.01.2013 and another amount of Rs.6.50 lacs on 01.02.2013 i.e. totaling to Rs.11 lacs, which was acknowledged by the company by way of issuing receipt no.0450 dated 07.02.2013, Annexure C-1. Thereafter, provisional allotment letter dated 08.03.2013, Annexure C-2 in respect of the unit in question was issued in favour of the appellants, wherefrom also, it is evident that the basic sale price of the unit was fixed at Rs.13.40 lacs after giving discount of Rs.1,80,900/-.
It is further evident from the record that thereafter, sale deed, Annexure C-3, in respect of the unit in question was got executed on 06.07.2017. In the said sale deed, it has been duly mentioned by the respondents that the Company i.e. Emerging Valley Private Limited has obtained Change of Land Use (CLU) and licence from the competent authorities but also added therein that the said company is responsible to develop and maintain the said project in future. Thus, from the contents of the sale deed itself, it is evident that development at the project site was still to be done by the opposite parties and it was only thereafter, that they committed to maintain the project, in future.
From the said sale deed it is further evident that it has been mentioned therein that the unit in question has been sold for total sale consideration of Rs.3,70,000/- instead of Rs.11 lacs. Surprisingly, this amount of Rs.3.70 lacs has been received by the company at the time of execution of the sale deed. It appears that the amount of Rs.11 lacs has been concealed and it has not been made clear as to whether this amount of Rs.3.70 lacs has been received in addition to the amount of Rs.11 lacs or has been adjusted therefrom.
Furthermore, in order to prove their case that neither construction work of the unit is complete nor basic amenities are available at the project site, the appellants, before the District Commission, had placed on record 05 (five) photographs, Annexure C-4 (colly.) of the incomplete tower in which the said unit is located and also the project site. It is evident from the said photographs that only a partial/incomplete tower is standing, which is surrounded by long shrubs and trees, which is looking as good as jungle. There is not even a single sign of development activities at the project site; basic amenities such as roads, sewerage, water, electricity, parks etc. are not even in existence and it appears that the project has been abandoned by the respondents/opposite parties.
However, we are surprised and infact it is disheartening to note that despite the fact that it was clearly evident from the photographs aforesaid that the project in question was not habitable and also it had been clearly mentioned in the sale deed aforesaid that the opposite parties are responsible to develop and maintain the said project, in future, yet, the District Commission without applying its judicial mind, dismissed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. In our considered opinion, the impugned order is based upon surmises and it sans proper appreciation of the material available on the record.
It may be stated here that the Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation, enacted to empower the consumers of various goods and services against arbitrary practices. It aims to provide rights and benefits to consumers of good faith and provides them with appropriate machinery for redressal of their grievances. However, in the present case, the District Commission failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the appellants, in the shape of photographs showing the status of the project and the unit and also the sale deed wherein it was clearly mentioned that the project was to be developed by the opposite parties and was also to be maintained by them, in future. The mere fact that sale deed has been executed in respect of the unit in question, is not a ground to hold that refund cannot be ordered in favour of the complainants, as it has not been cancelled, especially, when it is proved that neither the unit is ready for occupation nor basic amenities have been provided at the project site.
Be that as it may, there is another valid reason for this Commission to hold that the project in question is farce and that the appellants are entitled to get refund of the amount paid by them alongwith interest and also compensation for mental agony and harassment. It may be stated here that a similar controversy, as to whether, the project in question i.e. Emerging Valley Private Limited, Trinity Homes, is habitable and that the opposite parties have obtained all the requisite permissions and clearances or not, fell for determination before this Commission in the case titled as Anjali Dogra Vs. Emerging Valley Private Limited, Complaint case No. 80 of 2019, decided by this Commission on 04.01.2021, in respect of the same very project i.e. Emerging Valley Private Limited, wherein, the complainants had placed on record RTI information dated 20.06.2017 supplied by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) i.e. the competent Authority, wherein, it was intimated that the said Company (Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.) had applied to get licence to develop a colony; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued, but, since the company failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it and that it cannot sell plot or flat in the said project without obtaining the same (license). Translated copy of the said letter read as under:-
"GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA BHAWA, SECTOR 62, S.A.S. NAGAR (Town Planning and Licensing Shakha) To Sh.Manvir Singh Home No.447, Type-2, Punjab Mandi Board Complex Sector 66, S.A.S. Nagar Letter No.STP/GMADA/A-2/2016/1866 dt. 20/06/2017 Subject: Sh.Manvir Singh (File No.10919) through RTI Act, 2005 for information (Diary No.465 dated 05.06.2017) The information sought Regarding the above subject, it is stated that M/S Emerging Valley Private Limited applied for setting up a colony at Village Nogiari district SAS Nagar and for taking up the license in this office but the promoter of the colony could not fulfil the conditions of letter of intent, the licence was not issued to the promoter. The promoter of the colony cannot sell a plot, flat and boths without taking the license.
Sd/- Administrative Office Licensing GMADA, S.A.S. Nagar Endorsement No.GMADA STP/2016 dated
copy of the above is hereby sent to Administrative officer (Coordination) SAS Nagar with reference to his letter No.1222 dated 08/06/2017 for information."
Not only as above, even in Complaint case No. 222 of 2019, Reeta Kumari Sharma Vs. Emerging Valley Private Ltd. decided by this Commission on 05.04.2021 also, vide order dated 20.02.2020, this Commission sought information from the GMADA to apprise with regard to the status of approvals of the project in question i.e. Emerging Valley Private Ltd.. The GMADA vide letter dated 05.03.2020 in a very clear cut manner had informed this Commission that letter of intent had been granted to the opposite parties in respect of the project in question, yet, the same stood cancelled.
During the course of proceedings in this appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Commission by the appellants that after receipt of impugned order, they visited the project site on 23.06.2021 and found that the entire tower has been demolished by the respondents. To substantiate their stand, the appellants have placed on record photographs Annexure A-2 (colly.) showing the debris of the construction material of tower in question. It is pertinent to mention here that a similar controversy with regard to demolition of the project in question also, came up for adjudication before this Commission in respect of the very same project in the case titled as Gurdev Kaur Thind Vs. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. and ors., CC No. 15 of 2020 decided on 21.12.2020. However, to convince ourselves, this Commission, during pendency of that complaint ( Gurdev Kaur Thind, supra), ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali and also by Chief Administrator Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), as to whether Emerging Valley Private Limited was in fact the owner of plots sold in the project- Emerging Valley, Village Naugiari, Tehsil and District Mohali or not. However, this Commission was surprised when it received enquiry report dated 27.11.2020 from the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, wherein, it was in a very candid manner stated that under the garb of permission of Change of Land Use (CLU), the opposite parties constructed unauthorized colony (the project- Emerging Valley Private Limited) without obtaining licence in that regard, as a result whereof, FIR has also been registered against the Directors of the Company and also they have been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction in the said project but they failed to take any action in that regard. Other serious allegations alongwith documentary evidence were also leveled by the GMADA, in the said enquiry report. Relevant part of the case Gurdev Kaur Thind, supra, reads as under:-
"Now coming to the main dispute qua non delivery of actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant, it may be stated here that to convince ourselves, as to whether the allegations leveled by the complainant in this complaint to the effect that the project has been launched without necessary approvals and licence and that the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot in question, in near future, this Commission, during pendency of this complaint, ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, Mohali and also by Chief Administrator Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), as to whether the opposite Parties i.e. Emerging Valley Private Limited were in fact the owner of plot No.55, Emerging Valley, Village Naugiari, Tehsil and District Mohali or not? However, this Commission was surprised, when enquiry report dated 27.11.2020 was received from the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, wherein, it was in a very candid manner stated that under the garb of permission of Change of Land Use (CLU), the opposite parties constructed unauthorized colony (the project in question) without obtaining licence in that regard, as a result whereof, FIR has also been registered against the Directors of the Company and also they have been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction in the said project but they failed to take any action in that regard. Other serious allegations alongwith documentary evidence (Annexure A-1 to A-13) has also been leveled by the GMADA, in the said enquiry report, relevant contents whereof are reproduced hereunder:-
"...Enquiry Report That in this regard, it is humbly submitted that the facts of the case are that on 05.07.2012 field staff of office of GMADA reported the matter that an unauthorised colony namely 'Emerging Valley' is being developed, on Landran-Banur scheduled road. On the basis of this field staff report, vide letter no. 1425 dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure A-I), a complaint was made to the SSP, SAS Nagar for registration of FIR for violation of the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995(hereinafter PAPRA, 1995).
That thereafter, vide letter no. 2728 dated 02.11.2012, the Assistant Public Relation Officer, GMADA, Ajitgarh (SAS Nagar) was directed by Estate Officer, GMADA to give the public notice in English and Punjabi newspapers about the development of unauthorised colonies/ Projects falling within the jurisdiction of GMADA and consequently public notices were given in various newspapers making the general public aware that 'M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Private Ltd' has not been issued any License for the development as an approved colony by GMADA, as such no plot/ apartment can be offered for sale by the said company. Copy of letter dated 02.11.2012 and clips of newspapers have been annexed herewith as (Annexure A-2) colly.
That thereafter, M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd, after depositing tentative charges Rs. 1,45,66000( One Crore, Forty Five Lakh and Sixty Six Thousands only), obtained the permission for Change of Land Use (CLU) vide letter no. 1983 dated 04.07.2013 (Annexure A-3) Colly. This CLU was valid for two years from the date of grant of permission. As per the conditions v,vi and vii of CLU, the promoter company was bound to get License under PAPRA, 1995 before making any development/construction at the site.
That, but under the garb of permission for Change of Land Use the Promoter Company constructed the unauthorised colony without getting license from the Competent Authority.
That thereafter, when the Promoter company did not stop unauthorised construction and the Police Department did not take any action on the earlier complaint dated 17.07.2012, another" complaint, vide letter no. 1115 dated 23.04.2014 (Annexure A-4), was made to SSP, SAS Nagar to register FIR under PAPRA,1995 against the Promoter Company.
That thereafter, in reference to Promoter Company's application for issue of License of Colony, dated 28.01.2013 ,over 25 acres of land for which the Promoter Company had already obtained permission for change of land use, the Competent Authority-cum-Chief Administrator issued Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Promoter Company vide memo no. 1303 dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure A-5). This LOI was issued subject to certain conditions mentioned therein and these conditions were to be fulfilled within thirty days from the date of issue of the notice. However the Promoter Company failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in LOI, consequently LOI was cancelled vide letter no. 2465 dated 11.08.2015 and License of Colony could not be issued.
That thereafter, when even without getting the License of Colony, the Promoter Company started the development of unauthorised colony, a show cause notice, regarding demolition of unauthorised construction, was issued vide letter no. 4801 dated 01.12.2015, directing thereby to stop the unauthorised construction immediately and to come present, within thirty days, before the Competent Authority and show cause why the unauthorised construction made by the Promoter Company should not be demolished. This show cause notice was issued for violating the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 and the Punjab New Capital(Periphery) Control Act, 1952. Copy of Show cause notice dated 01.12.2015 has been annexed herewith as Annexure A-6.
That thereafter, Senior Town Planner, Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion(PBIP) vide letter no. 1424 dated 23.06.2016 (AnnexureA-7) intimated to Chief Administrator, GMADA that M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd has applied in the office of Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion (PBIP) for getting License. Through this letter Senior Town Planner has sought some legal opinion on the question as to whether the unauthorised construction made by the applicant may be considered under the compounding policy or in the process of issuing of License. In response to this query, Legal Cell GMADA opined that as the applicant is willing to develop his project as per law and if the applicant fulfils all the prescribed legal formalities, he may be allowed to join the main stream by issuing the License. This opinion was duly intimated to Senior Town Planner, Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion(PBIP) vide letter no. 5530 dated 15.11.2016 (Annexure A-8), further through this letter it was also intimated that the applicant, by making application at the office of Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion(PBIP), was just trying to buy time for making unauthorised construction because if he had bona fide intention for taking license he would have deposited all the due charges which were requisite under the conditions of LOI issued earlier on 06.05.2015.
That thereafter, when the Promoter Company did not stop the unauthorised construction, then Estate Officer, GMADA vide letter no. 5908 dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure A-9) directed the Subdivisional Engineer to immediately seal the project of the Promoter Company and further directed to ensure that in future, unless the Promoter Company gets the License, no construction takes place and if the Promoter company makes further construction without license and this matter is not reported to the office of GMADA, then Sub-divisional Engineer shall be held liable personally.
That thereafter, vide Notification no. 12/04/165-Hg2/891764/1 dated 15.12.2016, the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, notified the regularization policy for the purpose of regularization of unauthorised colonies. The Promoter Company, for getting its unauthorised colony regularised, applied to the Senior Town Planner, Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion (PBIP) on 16.12.2016 (Annexure A-10) for transferring its case to the office of GMADA. However, this policy was not applicable in this case because this colony falls within Periphery Controlled area.
That thereafter, in 2017, the people who had purchased plots/property, from the Promoter Company, filed complaints in consumer forums against the Promoter Company. Firstly, because of this litigation and investment made by the innocent people' and secondly it was seeming that the Promoter Company may get the due License of colony because it has been making representations in this regard in the office of GMADA (Annexure A-11) colly. Due to these reasons, at that time GMADA hold the process of demolition and only kept the project sealed for stopping further unauthorised construction at the site.
That thereafter, vide letter no. 5683 dated 22.08.2019 (Annexure A-12), Estate Officer GMADA wrote to the SSP, SAS Nagar to provide information about the registration of FIR against the Promoter Company. Finally, taking action on the earlier complaints and on this letter, FIR has been registered on 21.08.2019 at Police Station, Sohana, Distt. SAS Nagar, under section 36(1) of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, against Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Sh. Kamaljit Singh, Directors of the Promoter Company M/s Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. A copy of FIR has been annexed herewith as (Annexure A-13) co11y.
That thereafter, when the Promoter Company did not get the license of colony, the Competent Authority-cum- Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA vide order no. 1324 dated 17.07.2020 directed to Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Sh. Kamaljit Singh, the Directors of the Promoter Company to demolish the unauthorised construction within the period of thirty days from the date of issue of demolition orders. But the Directors of the Promoter Company did not take any action in compliance of demolition order. Thereafter, on 17.09.2020 and 18.09.2020 this unauthorised construction has been demolished by GMADA and in this regard in EA/446/2017 (Kuldeep Singh Negi Vs M/s Emerging Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) due compliance report has been filed on 07.10.2020. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the office of GMADA, from the very initial stage of development of unauthorised colony, has been taking action, the Promoter Company has been making construction inspite of giving notices and sealing of project Though they had applied for CLU, LOI, regularization of colony under the Policy notified by the Govt. Of Punjab, but they were not able to get any approval from the Competent Authority. Therefore ' GMADA office has written to SSP, SAS Nagar vide letter 1425 dated 17.07.2012, vide letter no. 1115 dated 23.04.2014 and letter no. 5683 dated 22.08.2019. There is no laxity in efforts from GMADA office against the Promoter Company.
Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances narrated above this Compliance Report may_ kindly be allowed to be taken on-record and proceedings against GMADA may be dropped, in the interest of justice.
Place: S.A.S Nagar Addition Chief Administrator GMADA Dated:27.11.2020"
It is settled law that before launching the project and selling the units therein, the project proponent is legally bound to obtain all necessary approvals/permissions/clearances from the Competent Authorities. Whereas, in the present case, not even a single document has been placed on record by the respondents, either before the District Commission or before this Commission. Infact, the respondents chose not to put in appearance before the District Commission to prove that the project in question was having a clear title of land. On the other hand, it is evident from the afore-extracted information culled out from the enquiry report submitted by the GMADA, that the project launched by the opposite parties was farce. Not even licence for launching the project in question has been obtained by the opposite parties, what to speak of obtaining remaining approvals/permissions/clearances from the Competent Authorities. The office of GMADA, from the very initial stage of development of unauthorized project in question, initiated various legal actions with a view to stop the construction and development there but the company did not stop in doing so. Though, the company had applied for CLU, LOI for regularization of the project in question under the Policy notified by the Govt. of Punjab, but they were not able to get any approval from the Competent Authority in that regard. Written complaints by the GMADA office were also given to SSP, SAS Nagar vide letter 1425 dated 17.07.2012, vide letter no. 1115 dated 23.04.2014 and letter no. 5683 dated 22.08.2019, yet, the company did not stop and kept on booking the units/plots in the unauthorized project and usurped substantial amount from the buyers including the complainants. Collecting money from the perspective buyers and selling the project, without obtaining the required permissions and sanctions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It was so said by the Hon'ble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31 May 2018. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
"................This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.
It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency............"
The opposite parties/respondents even failed to produce before this Commission any document/valid licence issued by the competent authority. Under these circumstances, an adverse inference could easily be drawn against the respondents, that they have nothing to say in their defence. The act and conduct of the respondents in receiving huge amount from the appellants and on the other hand, by not providing them the actual physical possession of the unit in question, amounts to deficiency in rendering service. At the same time, it is also held that in the absence of construction and development activities at the project site and also the fact that the said project has been launched in violation of the relevant provisions of the Law/Rules/Regulations applicable to the State of Punjab , the act of getting the sale deed executed in respect of the unit in question by the respondents, also amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice.
As such, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the District Commission fell into a grave error in dismissing the consumer complaint, by holding to the contrary. The order impugned, thus, suffered from illegality and needs interference of this Commission.
It is therefore held that the order impugned dated 10.06.2021 passed by the District Commission in consumer complaint bearing no.248 of 2020 is set aside. Resultantly, this appeal filed by the complainants stands partly allowed and the respondents/opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed as under:-
To refund the entire amount of Rs.11 lacs to the appellants/complainants, alongwith compensation by way of interest @12% p.a., without deducting any TDS, from the respective dates of deposit onwards, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, thereafter, the said amount shall carry 3% penal interest i.e. 15% p.a. (12% p.a. plus (+) 3% p.a.), from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
To pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation, in lumpsum, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants/complainants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.
However, the appellants/complainants are directed to return the original sale deed to the respondents/opposite parties and both parties shall get cancel the sale deed bearing no.2001 dated 06.07.2017 (Registered with Sub-Registrar, SAS Nagar), Annexure C-3, from the registering authority concerned, within a period of 7 days, from the date of receipt of the awarded amount by the appellants/complainants.
While parting this order, we have observed that the controversy has arisen solely by concealing the fact of non-issuance of Change of Land Use (CLU) and valid licences by the competent authorities, for launching and selling the project in question. In this view of the matter, we direct the Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority; Chief Town Planner, Punjab; and Chief Country Planner, Punjab, to issue directions to all the developers/builders/project proponents of the residential/commercial projects, falling under their territory, to provide copy of following documents issued by the competent authorities, to the intending buyers, at the time of booking the units/plots in their project:-
Clear title deed of the project land i.e. Khasra No./Revenue record etc.;
Letter of Intent;
Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate;
Registration Certificate as developer;
Licence to launch the project;
Approved Layout/Zoning plans;
All approvals/sanctions/clearances from various departments like Pollution, Forest, Electricity, Fire, Airport Authorities, Ground water, environment etc. Construction Clearance Certificate/Commencement Certificate:
Occupation and completion certificates before offering possession of the units/plots etc. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. A copy thereof be also sent to the Chief Administrator, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Chief Town Planner, Punjab; and Chief Country Planner, Punjab, PUDA BHAWAN, Sector- 62, S. A. S Nagar, Punjab, for compliance of the aforesaid directions given to them, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Since, Respondent no.2/Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director of the company is confined in Model Jail Burail, therefore, certified copy of this order be supplied to him through the Jail Superintendent, Model Jail, Burail, Chandigarh.
The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced 04.01.2022 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Rg.