State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurpreet Singh vs Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd. on 13 December, 2024
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Complaint No. : 32 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Gurpreet Singh, aged 41 years, S/o Sh. Magher Singh,
2] Kuldeep Kaur W/o Sh. Gurpreet Singh,
Both Residents of Flat No.4219, Tower G-4, 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Moors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 33 of 2023
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Neha Garg, aged 36 years S/o Sh. Manoj Singal.
2] Mr. Manoj Singal S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
Both Residents of Flat No.12219, Tower-G-4, 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 34 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
2
1] Manav Gupta, aged 34 years S/o Sh. Ishwar Dass,
2] Mrs. Mannat Mahajan W/o Sh. Manav Gupta,
Both Residents of Flat No.11216, Tower G-3, 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 35 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Rekha Rana, aged 33 years, W/o Sh. Sandeep Thakur,
2] Mr. Sandeep Thakur S/o Sh. Arvind Kumar,
Both Residents of Flat No.2216, Tower G3, 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 36 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Pawandeep Kaur, aged 33 years, W/o Mr. Kashish Chopra, Resident of Flat
No.3212, Tower G2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra,
Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
....Complainant.
Versus
3
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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Moors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 37 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Niraj Kumar Karn, aged 54 years S/o Sh. Chhedi Prasad Karn,
2] Pallavi Karn W/o Sh. Niraj Kumar Karn,
Both residents of Flat No.5209, Tower 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 38 of 2024
Date of Institution : 29.04.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Harvinder Kaur, aged 54 years W/o Sh. Avtar Singh,
2] Mr. Avtar Singh S/o Lt. Mr. Ajaib Singh,
Both Residents of Flat No.1216, Tower G-3, City of Dreams-I,
Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, 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.
4
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 40 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Raman Deep, aged 44 years D/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
2] Mohinder Kaur W/o Sh. Gucharan Singh,
Both Residents of Flat No.4209, Tower 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 41 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
1] Rajesh Kumar, aged 52 years, S/o Mr. Sat Pal,
2] Monika Singla W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
Both Residents of Flat No.4210, Tower G-2, City of Dreams 1,
Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, 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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
5
Complaint No. : 42 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Vishal Gautam, aged 42 years, S/o Mr. Sat Pal Gautam, Resident of Flat
No.2214, Tower G-3, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra,
Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali- 140301.
....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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 43 of 2023
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Hardip Kaur, aged 66 years, W/o Mr. Mohinder Singh, Resident of Flat
No.1213, Tower G-2, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra,
Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
....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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 44 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Nancy Walia, aged 49 years, W/o Mr. Gurvinder Walia, Resident of Flat
No.13214, Tower G-3, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante
Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
6
....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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 45 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Swaran Kaur, aged 50 years, W/o Sh. Guljar Singh, Resident of Flat
No.2218, Tower G-4, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra,
Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
....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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 46 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Narinder Singh, aged 55 years S/o Sh. Piara Singh, Resident of Flat
No.9215, Tower G-3, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar Road, Sante Majra,
Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
....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.
7
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 47 of 2024
Date of Institution : 02.05.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Saminder Kaur Sidhu, aged 42 years W/o Mr. Prabhjot Singh Sidhu,
Resident of Flat No.3214, Tower G-3, City of Dreams 1, Landran Kharar
Road, Sante Majra, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali - 140301.
....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 Director,
Plot No.1265C, Near Tata Motors, Sector 82, Industrial Area,
Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab - 140308.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint No. : 71 of 2024
Date of Institution : 08.07.2024
Date of Decision : 13.12.2024
Renu Parmar, aged 55 years W/o Sh. Rajender Singh Parmar, Resident of
House No.2023, 2nd Floor, 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.
2] M/s Singla Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., through its Director,
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. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.8
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Brief facts:-
By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid 16 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 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.32 of 2024 titled "Gurpreet Singh & anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr." as follows:-
Brief facts : (CC/32/2024)
4. The complainants were allotted 3 BHK residential flat No.4219, 4th Floor, Tower G4 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 ₹37,00,000/- (in fact ₹38,52,883/-) and agreement for sale was executed on 27.03.2021. As per Clause 7.1 of the said agreement, possession of the unit was to be delivered on or before December 2021 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 possession letter dated 23.05.2022 and Sale Deed was got registered on 30.05.2022.
5. However, the details of the remaining above captioned 15 consumer complaints with regard to case No., Flat No./Floor No./Tower No., Total Sale Consideration, Date of execution of Agreement for Sale, Date of Possession Letter, Date of execution of Sale Deed, are tabulated here-in- below:-
Sr. Case No. Flat No./Floor Total Sale Date of Date of Date of No. No./Tower Consideration execution of Possession execution of No. (Rs.) Agreement Letter Sale Deed for Sale
1. 33/2024 12219, Rs.38,52,883/- 17.11.2020 01.08.2022 10.03.2023 12th Floor, Tower G-4 9
2. 34/2024 11216, Rs.35,49,883/- 26.08.2021 16.06.2022 25.07.2022 11th Floor, Tower G-3
3. 35/2024 2216, Rs.42,87,185/- 04.10.2019 11.08.2022 26.07.2022 2nd Floor, Tower G-3
4. 36/2024 3212, Rs.42,56,883/- 25.03.2021 18.04.2022 12.04.2022 3rd Floor, Tower G-2
5. 37/2024 5209, Rs.40,54,883/- 29.12.2020 22.12.2021 17.01.2022 5th Floor, Tower G-1
6. 38/2024 1216, Rs.44,58,883/- 31.05.2021 29.10.2022 17.08.2022 1st Floor, Tower G-3
7. 40/2024 4209, Rs.41,55,883/- 25.01.2021 17.09.2021 16.09.2021 4th Floor, Tower G-1
8. 41/2024 4210, Rs.41,55,885/- 05.12.2019 27.02.2023 19.10.2023 4th Floor, Tower G-2
9. 42/2024 2214, Rs.42,56,883/- 28.02.2021 22.11.2022 28.09.2022 2nd Floor, Tower G-3
10. 43/2024 1213, Rs.43,57,883/- 24.02.2021 15.04.2022 01.04.2022 1st Floor, Tower G-2
11. 44/2024 13214, Rs.41,05,383/- 15.03.2021 01.09.2022 20.10.2022 13th Floor, Tower G-3
12. 45/2024 2218, Rs.36,40,786/- 22.09.2022 06.10.2022 09.11.2022 2nd Floor, Tower G-4
13. 46/2024 9215, Rs.42,56,883/- 27.03.2021 08.08.2022 11.04.2023 9th Floor, Tower G-3
14. 47/2024 3214, Rs.43,07,385/- 17.12.2020 20.06.2022 01.08.2022 3rd Floor, Tower G-3
15. 71/2024 2032, Rs.31,89,080/- 03.04.2018 11.01.2021 17.09.2021 2nd Floor, Tower A
6. In the case in hand i.e. CC/32/2024, it has further been stated that complainant No.1 - Gurpreet Singh transferred the property in the name of his wife namely Kuldeep Kaur i.e. complainant No.2 vide transfer deed dated 08.06.2023, Annexure C-9. 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.
7. 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 10 27.03.2021, the opposite parties have agreed to pay all outgoings including maintenance charges before transferring of physical possession of the flat to the complainants.
8. 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.
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 27.03.2021, Annexure C- 7, are self contradictory, illegal, entirely one-sided and unfair contract.
12. Reply of opposite party No.1 - Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd.
13. The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing joint reply by taking following preliminary objections and on merits also:-
i. that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary party. ii. that this Commission does not has the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint;11
iii. 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;
iv. that the complaint is barred by limitation; v. that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission for lack of jurisdiction because as per the terms and conditions of Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2021, 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.
14. However, on merits of the case, the opposite parties have 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 while taking over the possession of the unit, the complainants duly signed a satisfactory note upon the possession letter dated 23.05.2022, followed by execution of registered sale deed on 30.05.2022. It has further been stated that the project has been occupied by many of the residents living therein to their entire satisfaction. 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 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.
15. 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. It has further been stated that the lifts have been installed as per the approved site plan and as per the provisions established under the law. 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 12 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 their part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Rejoinder:-
16. In the rejoinder filed, the complainants reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and controverted those contained in written reply of the opposite parties.
17. The parties led evidence in support of their case and also filed written arguments.
18. 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:-
Territorial jurisdiction:-
19. 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 13 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 as per the own documents placed on record by the opposite parties i.e. letter No.FB-17/539 dated 24.10.2017 (at Page 211 of the file) written by Fire Officer, Fire Brigade Department, SAS Nagar to opposite party No.1 - M/s Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., at its address : SCO-146, 147, 148, Second Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh; Order/CLU - Change of Land Use (at Page 212) issued by Office of Regional Deputy Director-cum-Competent Authority, Local Govt. Patiala under PAPRA in favour of opposite party No.1 again at the same address i.e. SCO-146, 147, 148, Second Floor, Sector 43B, Chandigarh - 160042 and Certificate of extension of Registration of project namely "City of Dreams-1" issued to opposite party No.1 (at Page 218) with endorsement dated 03.03.2022 again at the aforesaid address, it is very much established that the opposite parties were actually and voluntarily residing and carrying on business and personally works for gain at Chandigarh from the aforesaid office address. 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:-
20. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties 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 Enterprise, 2023 Live Law (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 14 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 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:-
21. It is significant to mention here that admittedly, in all these cases, respective agreements were executed between the parties, in the year 2018 to 2022. 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 & 2022 and in one case i.e. CC/41/2024 in the year 2023 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;15
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 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;
In this regard, it is apposite to mention here that earlier in a similar bunch of 20 cases, the lead case being that of Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2023 titled 'Manpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' decided on 29.02.2024, this Commission has already decided the identical issues as have been raised aforesaid in these consumer complaints. Service lift:-
22. 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-3 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. 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. No doubt, the demand of extra service lift to be provided in the tower(s) in question based on the basis of notification dated 31.12.2019, Annexure C-4, is genuine but the factual position is that the building has already been constructed and the lift(s) provided therein did not match the required criteria fixed under the said notification, which says that one lift in the towered group housing buildings shall have the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person. In our concerted view, the opposite parties should explore the possibility of providing a service lift in the tower(s) having the capacity for a stretcher to carry an ailing person and specification in consonance with notification dated 31.12.2019. However, in the meanwhile, the opposite parties are directed to 16 provide adequate arrangements like compatible stretcher, wheel chair etc. to cater to the needs of the residents of the project, in case of any medical emergency.
One open on surface parking
23. 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 G, Clause 1.2(iv) and Clause 1.9 of the Terms of respective agreements that they will provide one open on surface parking and the same shall be treated as a single indivisible unit for all purposes, 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.
Maintenance charges:-
24. 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 on surface 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 on surface 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 17 those facilities/amenities, the opposite parties would have definitely been spending amount thereupon like payments to sweepers, gardeners, 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 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:-
25. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties 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 the opposite parties 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 the opposite parties 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 18 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 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:-
26. Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that since the complainants never approached them 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, Annexure C-10 colly. to resolve the aforesaid grievances including that of shifting of hose pie. 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 the opposite parties, in this regard stands rejected. Relief:-
27. For the reasons recorded above, all these complaints bearing Nos.32 of 2024, 33 of 2024, 34 of 2024, 35 of 2024, 36 of 2024, 37 of 2024, 38 of 2024, 40 of 2024, 41 of 2024, 42 of 2024, 43 of 2024, 44 of 2024, 45 of 2024, 46 of 2024, 47 of 2024 and 71 of 2024 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 19 complainant(s), compensation by way of interest @6% p.a. on the entire amount deposited by the respective complainant(s) 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.
28. Pending applications, if any, in all these complaints also stands disposed of accordingly.
29. 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.
30. Files be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced.
13.12.2024 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad 20 STATE COMMISSION (Complaint Case No.32 of 2024) (Gurpreet Singh & Anr. Vs. CREDO Assets Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) Argued by:-
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the complainant(s). Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Dated: 13.12.2024 ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, all these complaints bearing Nos.32 of 2024, 33 of 2024, 34 of 2024, 35 of 2024, 36 of 2024, 37 of 2024, 38 of 2024, 40 of 2024, 41 of 2024, 42 of 2024, 43 of 2024, 44 of 2024, 45 of 2024, 46 of 2024, 47 of 2024 and 71 of 2024 have been partly accepted with costs.
(RAJESH K. ARYA) [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Ad