State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sandeep Singh vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd on 6 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 29 of 2012 Date of Institution : 24.05.2012 Date of Decision : 6.11.2012 Sh. Sandeep Singh son of Shri Gurdev Singh resident of House No.3105, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. Complainant. VERSUS Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., Regional Office, S.C.O. No.1098-1099, First Floor, Sector 22B, Chandigarh. ....Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the Opposite Party.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.199 measuring 250 Sq. Yards by the Opposite Party, in its Integrated Township called TDI City at Mohali-Kharar Road, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide allotment letter dated 19.09.2008 (Annexure C-1), @Rs.6,500/- per Sq. Yard and the total price payable by the complainant was Rs.22 Lacs. It was stated that the project was launched on 22.01.2008 and the developed plot was to be handed over to the complainant by the Opposite Party, within 16 months, i.e. up to May 2009, from the date of launch. The complainant annexed copy of the installment payment plan as Annexure C-2. It was further stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3 Lacs to the original applicant M/s Manohar Lal Sethi and Sons on 11.11.2005, who signed nomination papers of the plot, in question, in his favour. The complainant subsequently paid a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- and Rs.1 Lac to the Opposite Party vide Cheque No.55245 dated 07.04.2008 and Cheque No.55297 dated 08.07.2008 respectively, drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab. It was further stated that the nomination, in favour of the complainant, was accepted by the Opposite Party on 16.09.2008 vide document (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that the complainant also paid the first installment of Rs.1,62,500/- to the Opposite Party vide cheque No.074202 dated 08.10.2008 and receipts whereof are [Annexure C-6 (Colly.)]. It was further stated that for the balance payment, payable by the complainant, the Opposite Party was to issue a N.O.C to enable him to raise a housing loan from the LIC Housing Finance Limited. According to the complainant, the N.O.C was required from the builder, so that loan amount, could be released against the mortgage of plot. It was further stated that loan amount of Rs.15 Lacs was duly sanctioned, in favour of the complainant, and his wife on 12.11.2008, which was subsequently renewed on 09.03.2009 and 15.04.2010, in order to obtain N.O.C. from the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the loan approval lapsed after sometime, as the Opposite Party did not issue the requisite N.O.C, for the disbursal of loan amount. It was further stated that instead of issuing the N.O.C., the Opposite Party vide letter dated 23.02.2009, sought further payments vide letters dated 23.03.2009 and 21.05.2009 (Annexures C-8 and C-9). However, it was further stated that, on 03.06.2009, when the complainant approached the Regional Office of the Opposite Party at Chandigarh with letter dated 21.05.2009, it made an endorsement on the same letter that this was a home loan case and the N.O.C was awaited from the side of the Opposite Party, and as such, no interest was to be charged from the complainant till the N.O.C was issued to him. It was further stated that the complainant wrote letters dated 20.10.2009, 11.02.2010, 05.04.2010 and 7.5.2010 [Annexure C-10 (Colly.)] to the Opposite Party, for issuing the required N.O.C, which it did not issue till date. It was further stated that on visiting the project site, the complainant noticed that no development work was going on at the site, and the requisite portion of land, which was to be developed, was still a farm land. The complainant also took photographs [Annexure C-11(Colly.)] of the site, in question, on 03.05.2012. It was further stated that the plot, in question, was to be handed over by the Opposite Party, in a developed manner, on or before May 2009, but till date, neither, it had issued the N.O.C nor handed over the fully developed possession of the plot, in question. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, for directing the Opposite Party, to immediately issue the NOC to enable him to avail of the loan amount and subsequently, give possession of the plot, in question, on receipt of balance amount, as already agreed upon; or in the alternative, if for any reason, the possession of the said plot could not be given, then possession of some other plot of similar size and of the same specifications, in the same project be delivered, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, towards mental agony and physical harassment; and Rs.33,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, stated that in the month of July, 2008, the firm M/s Manohar Lal Sethi & Sons approached it for revocation of cancellation of its registration, but prior to this, the said firm had already negotiated with the complainant, for the transfer of registration deposit rights after revocation of cancellation letter. It was further stated that accordingly on 28.07.2008, the Opposite Party revoked the cancellation letter subject to payment of Rs.2,87,500/-, which included cancellation revocation charges and transfer charges. It was further stated that on 16.09.2008, the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party and selected the plot, in question i.e.Plot No.199 in the upcoming Mega Housing Project at Kharar Road, Mohali. It was further stated that the Opposite Party agreed to issue the allotment letter, on the condition, that the complainant would be making payment of Rs.1,62,500/-. It was further stated that on 19.09.2008, the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party and showed his inability to pay the aforesaid amount, and acceding to his request, the allotment letter (Annexure R-9) was issued in his favour ,but he remained unable to raise loan on the allotment letter. It was further stated that as the complainant wanted to hold the registration deposit rights, he paid an amount of Rs.1,62,500/- vide cheque dated 08.10.2008, which was credited to the account of the Opposite Party on 16.10.2008 and a proper receipt (Annexure R-10) was issued to him. It was further stated that till the month of February 2009, the complainant became in arrears of R.12,01,250/- and, accordingly, a letter dated 23.02.2009 was issued to him, whereby he was requested to make the said payment within a period of 10 days. It was further stated that the Opposite Party also wrote letter dated 02.12.2009 (Annexure R-11) to the complainant whereby he was requested to surrender the original receipts, and claim the refund of the deposited amount, as per the policy.
3. It was further stated that since, the complainant failed to make the payments, in accordance with the payment schedule, therefore, his registration was cancelled by the Opposite Party on 02.12.2009.
4. It was further stated that this Commission does not had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the application for registration to get an allotment of a residential plot was submitted by M/s Manohar Lal Sethi & Sons at the registered office of Opposite Party, at New Delhi, and the subsequent payments were accepted by the Opposite Party against proper receipts, issued from its registered office. It was further stated that even the plot, in question, is also situated at Mohali. Lastly, it was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his own affidavit, by way of evidence.
6. The Opposite Party, in support of its case, submitted the affidavit of Sh. Sanyam Dudeja, Authorised Signatory, by way of evidence.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant, as well as the Opposite Party, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
8. As regards the preliminary objection that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try this complaint, it is important to have a glance at Annexure C-3 (Colly.) letter dated 14.02.2006, written by the Opposite Party to the complainant vide which it advised him to collect the original receipt, duly endorsed from its office on 24.07.2008, in token of receipt of certain documents for transferring/ registering the name of the complainant as transferee/nominee in its records in respect of booking of Plot, in question. At the bottom of this letter dated 14.02.2006 [Annexure C-3 (Colly.)], both the addresses of Head Office at New Delhi as well as Regional Office at Chandigarh are written. Vide this letter, the complainant was advised to collect the original receipt, duly endorsed from its office on 24.07.2008. As there is no specific direction from the Opposite Party, as to whether the receipt was to be collected from its Head Office, at New Delhi, or its Regional Office at Chandigarh and since the complainant resides at Chandigarh, therefore, in our considered view, it was the implied instruction of the Opposite Party to the complainant, to collect the original receipt, duly endorsed, from its Regional Office at Chandigarh. Moreover, the Multi City Cheque bearing No.074202 dated 08.10.2008, issued by the complainant, in favour of the Opposite Party, was also drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, SCO No.61-63, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Furthermore, the letters [Annexures C-10 (Colly.)], duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party, were sent by the complainant to it, for issuance of N.O.C, at its Regional Office at Chandigarh. From all these documents, it is proved, that the complainant has been communicating with the Opposite Party, at its Regional Office at Chandigarh. Therefore, it can easily been concluded that a part of cause of action definitely accrued to the complainant at Chandigarh. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The preliminary objection of the Opposite party thus being without merit is rejected.
9. Now coming to the merits of the case, the only question to be determined, is as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party, in canceling the registration of the complainant, on account of his failure, in making the remaining payment, as per the payment schedule. The specific case of the complainant, is that the remaining payment of the price of plot, was to be made by him, after raising loan from the LIC Housing Finance Limited, for which, N.O.C was required from the Opposite Party, so that loan amount could be released against mortgage of the plot, in question. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that it was only due to non issuance of the required N.O.C, by the Opposite Party, that the complainant failed to get the said pre-sanctioned loan amount, disbursed. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that, it cancelled the registration of the plot on 02.12.2009 (Annexure R-12) as the complainant failed to pay the due installments, as per the payment schedule. There is, on record, a letter dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure C-9), placed by the complainant, whereby the Opposite Party asked him to remit an amount of Rs.12,01,250/- and in case of failure to pay the said amount within 07 days, the complainant was to pay interest @21% per annum, from the date of launch of the scheme. However, on this very letter, the Opposite Party also made an endorsement on 03.06.2009, which reads as under: -
HOME LOAN CASE. NOC IS AWAITED. NO INTEREST TO BE CHARGED TILL NOC IS GIVEN.
10. The Opposite Party has not disputed this endorsement dated 03.06.2009, in its written statement. From the contents of this endorsement, it appears that the Opposite Party, agreed to issue the NOC, to the complainant, for raising home loan from some Bank, for payment of the remaining price of the plot. Not only this, vide this endorsement, the Opposite Party also waived off the interest, on the remaining amount, till the N.O.C was granted. Neither the NOC was issued, by the Opposite Party, nor any reason was furnished by it, for not issuing the required NOC, to the complainant, and, as such, it (Opposite Party) arbitrarily cancelled the registration of the plot of the complainant without serving any notice prior to such cancellation, which was totally unjustified. Hence, there was definitely, a deficiency, in rendering, service on the part of the Opposite Party, on this count.
11. In this view of the matter, the complainant is entitled to get physical possession of the plot, in question, provided he pays the full price of the same, as already agreed upon between the parties. However, it is made clear that the Opposite Party could charge interest, on the delayed payments, only after issuance of the requisite NOC, to the complainant, for raising home loan by him, for payment of the remaining amount. In case, the plot, in question, is not available having been allotted to somebody else, by the Opposite Party, then, it would be liable to handover possession of an alternative plot, as prayed for by the complaint, in his complaint.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed as under: -
(i) to issue NOC to the complainant, to enable him to avail of home loan, for paying the remaining sale consideration of the plot, in question;
(ii) to hand over physical possession of (fully developed) Plot No.199 measuring 250 Sq. Yards to the complainant, in Integrated Township called TDI City at Mohali-Kharar Road, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, on receipt of the balance amount of sale consideration, as already agreed upon. However, the Opposite Party would be entitled to charge interest/penal interest, on the delayed payments, only from the date of issuance of the above N.O.C, from the complainant.
(iii) In the alternative, if for any reason, if the possession of plot No.199, above, could not be given to the complainant, then to hand over possession of some other fully developed plot of similar size and same specifications in the same project, on payment of the remaining sale consideration and interest on the same terms as indicated in direction No. (ii).
(iv) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, to the complainant, towards mental agony and physical harassment;
(v) to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/-, to the complainant, as cost of litigation.
13. The Opposite Party is directed to comply with the directions given in Para 12(i),
(iv) & (v), within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which it shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/-, along with interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint i.e.24.05.2012, till actual payment, besides costs.
14. However, the Opposite Party, is further directed to comply with directions at Para 12(ii) and (iii), within two months of the expiry of period of 45 days indicated in para No.13 [for compliance of directions in Para 12(i), (iv) & (v)], failing which, it shall be liable to pay penal interest @12% per annum on the amount of compensation, from the date of expiry of such period for compliance, till the possession of the plot, is handed over to the complainant, by the Opposite Party.
15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
Date:
November, 6, 2012 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.29 of 2012) Argued by:Sh. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the Opposite Party.
Date the 6th November, 2012 ORDER The complaint is admitted. It be registered. Arguments already heard.
Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed With cost, as per directions contained therein.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) PRESIDENT AD STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.29 of 2012) [Sh. Sandeep Singh Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.] Argued by:Sh. Sharan Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S. K. Monga, Advocate for the Opposite Party.
Dated the 6th day of November, 2012 ORDER Alongwith the complaint, an application for condonation of delay of about 12 months, in filing the same, has been filed by the complainant.
2. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the cause of action is recurring in nature, as the Opposite Party has not issued the N.O.C till date and the possession of the plot, in question, has also not been given to the complainant.
3. In its reply to this application, the Opposite Party has stated that the cause of action arose to the complainant, when the registration of his plot was cancelled by it on 02.12.2009 and, as such, the complaint should have filed the complaint up-to 02.12.2011, but it was actually filed on 24.5.2012 and, as such, it was barred by time.
4. Since neither the NOC was issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant, for raising loan for payment of the remaining sale consideration, nor the possession of the plot was delivered, there was a recurring cause of action to file the complaint. In this view of the matter, the application for condonation of delay is infructuous.
6. The application being infructuous, is disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of the orders be sent to the parties, free of cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT AD