State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sneh Lata vs M/S Tdi Infratech Ltd. & Anr. on 27 February, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2022
Date of Institution:05.04.2022
Reserved on :06.12.2023
Date of decision :27.02.2024
Sneh Lata w/o Surinder Kumar, R/o # 8277, Gali 2, Tilak Nagar,
Muktsar, Punjab, presently residing at K.No.57, Sector 69, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
......Complainant
Versus
1. M/s TDI Infratech Ltd., SCO 51-52, Airport Road, TDI City,
Sector-118, Mohali, Present address 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Marg, Gold Market, New-Delhi, through its Managing
Director/Directors.
2. Ravinder Kumar Taneja, Managing Director of TDI Infratech Ltd.,
SCO 51-52, Airport Road, TDI City, Sector-118, Mohali, Present
address 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gold Market, New-
Delhi
2. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), PUDA
Bhawan, Sector 62, S.A.S Nagar (Mohali), through its Estate
Officer.
Email Id: [email protected] for Opposite
Parties No.1 &2
[email protected] for opposite party No.3
....Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 47 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (as amended
upto date).
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the Complainant : Sh. Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate For Opposite Parties No.1&2 : Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate 2 C. C. No.25 of 2022 For Opposite Party No.3 : Sh. G.S. Arshi, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:
The Complainant-Sneh Lata has filed the present Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the "Act") for redressal of her grievances against the opposite parties (in short "OPs") with the averments/grievances that the plot in dispute is situated at Mohali which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and as such this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the subject matter of Complaint. As per the provisions of Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the present Complaint is maintainable before this State Commission.
2. The Complainant had purchased a residential plot bearing No.5300, measuring 450 square yards (376.25 square meter) situated in TDI City, Sector 116, SAS Nagar, Mohali from OPs No.1 and 2. An agreement was executed between the Complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 to sell and purchase the plot on 24.06.2020. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 were bound by said terms and conditions. Said plot was the corner plot and due to that purpose the OPs had charged the preferential location charges as mentioned below:-
i) Additional 10% for plots on main road 18 meters or above.
ii) Additional 3.5% for corner Plots = Rs.1,67,214/-
iii) Additional 2.5% for park facing/adjoining plots.
The Complainant has annexed the agreement to sell dated 24.06.2020 3 C. C. No.25 of 2022 as Ex.C-1. The Complainant had also paid an additional amount of Rs.1,67,214/- towards the preferential location charges to the OPs being the corner residential plot. On clearing all the dues, the Complainant had got the sale deed executed in her favour on 27.07.2020 as is clear from sale deed dated 27.07.2020 which is exhibited as Ex.C-2.
3. At the time of execution of agreement to sell (Ex.C-1), the OPs No.1 and 2 had also shared the copy of layout plan of the project wherein the plot of the Complainant had been reflected being the corner plot and the same is Ex.C-3. Further it has been mentioned in the Complaint that the Complainant came to know about public notice dated 27.10.2020 issued by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab PUDA, SAS Nagar (Mohali) whereby it was informed that OPs No.1 and 2 had submitted a revised layout plan on 18.09.2020 for Sector 117 and 118, SAS Nagar (Mohali) before the competent authority for seeking revision of the layout plan being developed by them. Said authority sought suggestions/objections from the general public on the said proposed revision of the layout plan vide letter dated 18.09.2020 (Ex.C-4). The Complainant filed objections stating that she being the allottee of the corner plot had already paid the required consideration amount but the action of OPs in seeking revision so proposed had violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter/sale deed. The copy of the objection so submitted by the Complainant is Ex.C-5. Being aggrieved by the action of the OPs, the Complaint has been filed for issuance of directions to the OPs as follow:-
4C. C. No.25 of 2022
1. OP No.3 being the competent authority be directed not to cause any modification/alteration in the layout of Sector-116, SAS Nagar and not to allow the creation of a new residential plot adjoining the residential plot of the Complainant;
2. OPs No.1 and 2 be directed to hand over the physical possession and to provide basic amenities i.e. roads, water supply and sewerage which are necessary to reside in the township and till the time the basic amenities are made available in the said township, interest @12% p.a. be paid to the Complainant from the date of payment till the delivery of possession alongwith the basic amenities are made available and an appropriate completion and occupation certificate is issued in favour of the OPs No.1 and 2;
3. To quash the illegal demand of Rs.15,281/- (Ex.C-7) for the club charges till the possession is delivered.
4. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- be directed to be paid to the Complainant towards the compensation for the mental, physical and financial harassment to the Complainant with the act and conduct of the OPs;
5. To pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the litigation charges.
And/or Any other relief as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the light of the facts of the present Complaint. In support of her averments the Complainant filed her affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.
4. Said Complaint was admitted on 17.04.2022 and notices were issued to the OP for 23.05.2022. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the OPs which are part of record.
5. OPs No.1 and 2 have mentioned in the reply that the Complaint is not maintainable as the same has been filed by 5 C. C. No.25 of 2022 misrepresenting the material facts. Certain concealment of facts is also there and as such the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further it has also been mentioned that the Complainant is not 'potential user' of the property in dispute and as such the Complainant cannot be termed as 'consumer' and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Objection of limitation has been raised in the written statement that the Complaint is barred by limitation and the same is not maintainable. Further it has been mentioned that the possession of the plot had already been delivered to the Complainant and the sale deed had also been executed on 27.07.2020 as is clear from approved layout plan dated 29.05.2015 annexed as Ex.R-4. The other averments made in the Complaint have also been denied by stating that the OP Company had already got the partial completion certificate from the competent authority on 30.06.2017 and the project of OP Company being the Mega Housing Project is still under progress as the competent Authorities have been issuing the partial completion certificate as per the policy on Department of Housing and Urban Development dated 02.09.2014. The other averments as made in the Complaint have also been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the Complaint.
6. Reply to the Complaint has been filed by OP No.3 stating therein that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the Complaint as the answering OP is neither promoter nor the developer of the project in dispute and as such there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the Complainant and the answering OP. Further 6 C. C. No.25 of 2022 certain preliminary objections have also been raised that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the Complaint against the answering OP and as no case of any 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' is there on the part of the answering OP No.3. The promoter is bound to complete all the development work of the project. The partial completion certificate had already been obtained by OP No.1 Company/promoter from the competent Authority vide memo dated 24.06.2015 and the promoter was to get the final completion certificate of the entire project as per the terms and conditions. Other averments made in the Complaint have been stated to be wrong hence denied and the same are not relating to the answering OP.
7. The Complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by OPs No.1 and 2 stating therein that OPs in order to mislead this Commission have filed two layout plans which are Khasra plans of their township without the legend showing as to how many plots are approved and what are their respective measurements. Said details may be compared with the layout plan dated 29.05.2015 which is available at page No.23 of their written statement which clearly shows the exact numbers of plot and wherein the plot of the Complainant has been shown to be corner plot. However in the layout plan which are allegedly stated to be approved and are the latest one are only the Khasra plans carrying no exact number of developed plots and as such the same is a case of sheer abuse of process of law and just to mislead this Commission. Further it has been mentioned that the OPs have not clarified as to what were the exact conditions of the plots. The OPs 7 C. C. No.25 of 2022 were forced to mention that actual vacant physical possession of the said plot will be handed over to the vendee on execution of sale deed. Further the OPs have miserably failed to demonstrate the factual points by placing on record the cogent and plausible evidence which shows that the possession of the plot No.5300 was ever handed over to the Complainant. It has been proved on record that the possession of the said plot No.5300 was neither offered nor handed over to the Complainant and the OPs had remained deficient in providing the services for which they have charged accepted huge amount from the Complainant. Further it has been submitted in the rebuttal that the OPs No.1 and 2 have tried to justify about charging of club membership charges for the club which allegedly operational in their written statement. However, till date the possession of the residential plot with complete amenities has not been provided and as such the question of taking the club membership does not arise. Moreover, the membership of club is optional and cannot be made as mandatory to any purchaser of the plot and in case anybody wants to have services of the club, one can avail only on paying the amount of the service/membership charges, as the case may be. At the end, it has been mentioned that the contents of written reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2 are liable to be rejected/dismissed and the Complaint filed by the Complainant deserved to be allowed.
8. Mr. Manoj Vashishtha Advocate, learned Counsel for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.1,67,214/- towards the preferential location 8 C. C. No.25 of 2022 charges to OPs No.1 and 2 being the corner residential plot and after clearing all the dues, the OPs had also got executed the sale deed in favour of the Complainant on 27.07.2020 as is clear from Ex.C-2. Inspite of this fact in the sale deed still the possession of the corner plot has not been handed over to the Complainant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 have further submitted that the revised layout plan for Sector 117 and 118, SAS Nagar (Mohali) was sent to the competent Authority for revision of layout of township and suggestions were also sought from the general public. The objections filed by the Complainant were supported by the documents stating therein that OPs No.1 and 2 had already allotted the corner plot for which she had paid the amount and subsequent proposal by way of revision of layout plan would be contrary to the terms and conditions of the allotment as earlier executed with the Complainant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the OPs have not handed over the physical possession of the plot till date and even the project has not been completed inspite of passing sufficient long time. Neither basic amenities are available nor infrastructure is visible on the ground. Even the roads have not been prepared as per the layout plan which is clear from the photographs annexed with the Complaint as Ex.C-6 (colly). Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Complainant had been forced to pay the excess amount and inspite of paying said amount, OPs No.1 and 2 had cleverly sold the residential plot to the Complainant by projecting to be the corner plot having green area adjoining to said plot and has also claimed more amount from the 9 C. C. No.25 of 2022 Complainant for that purpose but still the layout plan has been amended whereas the OPs are not competent to amend the layout plan as per the law. Further it has been submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 had not handed over the physical possession of the plot even after issuance of completion certificate of the project by the competent Authority, it is apparent that the project has not been completed by the OPs despite taking sufficient time. Neither the basic amenities are available nor any infrastructure is available on the ground. Learned Counsel has further submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 in connivance with OP No.3 are bent upon to amend the site plan wherein the plot of the Complainant has been shown and the same has been sold to the Complainant being the corner plot and had subsequently charged additional amount from the Complainant projecting being the preferential area. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the OPs are not competent to amend the site plan as per the law. Further it has been submitted that in case the OPs are succeeded in their clever tactics, an irreparable loss would be caused to the Complainant which cannot be compensated. Not only the OPs have also failed to hand over the physical possession till date but had also demanded the Club Charges from the Complainant. Further, in the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, they had denied even about the existence of any plot adjacent to plot No.5300 which was allotted to the Complainant. However, the Complainant on receipt of reply from the OPs had visited the website of the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority on 26.07.2022 to verify the latest status of the layout plan of TDI City but the link of website was given on the website 10 C. C. No.25 of 2022 i.e.http:/gmada.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents/TDI%20layout%20planpdf. From these facts, it is apparent that the OPs had submitted the plan mentioning plot No.5301 measuring 380 square yard in the said layout plan. This fact has supported the contention of the Complainant. The screenshot of the website clearly shows the link as mentioned and the same is Ex.C-8 and the layout showing the residential plot No.5301 is Ex.C-9. Further it has been submitted that the OPs No.1 and 2 had miserably failed to demonstrate the fact by placing on record any cogent evidence to show that the possession of plot No.5300 was ever handed over to the Complainant. It has been proved on record that the possession of said plot No.5300 was never offered to the Complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 had remained deficient in providing the service for which they had already received a heavy amount from the Complainant. Further the OPs had also failed not only in handing over the physical possession till date but they had demanded the club charges from the Complainant. At the end, it has been submitted that OPs No.1 and 2 had made efforts in their written statement to justify about the charging of club membership of the club which is allegedly to be in operation but till date the possession of the residential plot with all complete amenities has not been given and as such the question of demanding of club membership charges does not arise. Furthermore, the membership of club is optional and the same cannot be mandatory for every purchaser of the plot. The promoter/developer cannot put/impose mandatory restrictions/conditions for having the club membership in the vicinity. At the end, it has been submitted that the photographs which have been 11 C. C. No.25 of 2022 placed on record by the Complainant have not been rebutted by the OPs which clearly shows that the averments made in the Complaint have been accepted and as such there is no dispute with the averments made in the Complaint. By considering the present status of the project, it is apparent that the possession of the plot has neither been offered nor handed over to the Complainant.
9. Mr. Puneet Tuli Advocate, learned Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2 at the very outset has submitted that the present Complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the Complainant has misrepresented and wrong facts have been brought on record and as such the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Complainant is not a 'potential user' of the property in dispute and as such a person who is not a 'potential user' of services, cannot be said to be a 'consumer' and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further it has been submitted that the Complaint is barred by limitation and as such the same is not maintainable. That Government of Punjab with a view to attract investers in the State had formulated the Industrial Policy 2003. The OP Company as per said policy just to setup a Mega Housing Project with huge investment had submitted proposal to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab. Said proposal was accepted by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce and a letter of intent was also issued in favour of the OP Company on 21.12.2005. Thereafter, an agreement was signed between the OP Company and the Government of Punjab for implementation of said Mega Housing Project. Resultantly, the 12 C. C. No.25 of 2022 Government vide notification under Section 44 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 had exempted the Mega Housing Project of the OP Company from application of provisions of PAPRA Act, 1995. A copy of letter of intent dated 21.12.2005, the copy of agreement signed by the OP Company and the Government of Punjab dated 26.05.2006 as well as the copy of exemption under PAPRA are attached herewith as Annexure R-1 to R-3. After receiving the applications and on issuing allotment letters as well as the agreement executed between the parties, the possession of the plot was to be handed over to the applicants like the Complainant and sale deed was also required to be executed. The Letter of Allotment was issued in the name of the Complainant Mrs. Sneh Lata. OPs No.1 and 2 had already received partial completion certificate from the Competent Authority on 20.06.2017 which is annexed as R-9. The project of OP Company is a Mega Housing Project and the same is under progress. The competent Authorities have issued the partial completion certificate as per the policy of the Department of Housing and Urban Development dated 02.09.2014. OPs No.1 and 2 are developing the Mega Housing Project and as such they have right to get the layout plan approved including the revised and modified layout plans from the competent Authority from time to time. As per the revised layout plan as approved by the competent Authority, there is no plot adjacent to the plot of the Complainant in any of the approved plans. Learned Counsel has further submitted that at the time of submission of Application Form at the time of allotment or even at the time of signing of buyer agreement, the club 13 C. C. No.25 of 2022 membership charges were the integral part of total sale price as agreed by the Complainant herself. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent Company is to provide world class facility and has also provided facility of club to the residents and for that purpose every allottee was supposed to get the membership of the club by paying one time membership fee and those charges were justified by considering the facilities offered to the persons. There are other facilities also such as gymnasium, indoor games, sports swimming pool, etc. Other than the club facility, other facilities have also been provided to the persons like the Complainant. At the end, learned Counsel has submitted that there is no force in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons as mentioned above.
10. Mr. G.S. Arshi Advocate, learned counsel for OP No.3 i.e. GMADA has submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has no cause of action to file the present Complaint against the answering OP and as no case of any 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' is made out on the part of the answering OP No.3. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the competent authority for approval of layout plan/revised layout plan of this Mega Project of this Promoter was the Chief Town Planner, Punjab.
11. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence/documents available on the record.
14C. C. No.25 of 2022
12. Admittedly, the Complainant had applied for allotment of a plot and had also paid the consideration of the said plot to OPs No.1 and 2 and OPs No.1 and 2 and was allotted plot No.5300 having area 450 square yards. The allotted plot was the corner plot as is clear from document Annexure R-6. It is also admitted fact that the Residential Plot Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 24.06.2020 as is clear from Ex.C-1. The Complainant had paid total sale price of the said plot including preferential location charges i.e. Rs.1,67,214/- (being the corner plot) as per the payment plan. Sale deed was executed between the Complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 on 28.09.2020 as is clear from Ex.C-2.
13. The grievance of the Complainant is that OPs No.1 and 2 had submitted the revised layout plan without informing the Complainant and when she filed objections vide letter dated 20.11.2020 (Ex.C-5) to the said revised layout plan, the OPs had not considered the same. As per the version of the Complainant, she had purchased the corner plot and had also paid the preferential location charges to OPs No.1 and 2 but despite that they had carved out plot No.5301 as mentioned by her in letter dated 20.11.20220 (Ex.C-5). No reply to this letter was sent by the OPs. Moreover, OPs No.1 and 2 had not given any detailed reply to this version of the Complainant. In their parawise written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 had simply denied the version and had adduced a revised layout plan Annexure R-10 showing commercial area adjacent to plot of the complainant. On perusal of letter of allotment (Annexure R-6), it is apparent that the corner plot bearing 15 C. C. No.25 of 2022 No.5300 was allotted to the Complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 had also received the preference location charges from her. The reasons/necessity for carving out said plot had not been mentioned by OPs No.1 and 2. It appears that this plot/area had been carved out just to gain profit by selling the said plot and for this reasons, they had submitted the revised layout plan to the competent Authority. The action of OPs in carving out a plot adjacent to plot of the Complainant is an act of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. Moreover, the Complainant had purchased the said plot being the corner one and for that purpose she had also paid extra charges. However, OPs No.1 and 2 cannot back out from their commitment on receiving the amount of corner plot from the Complainant just to have benefit by carving out the new plot.
14. As per the version of the Complainant as mentioned in para No.9 of the Complaint, OPs No.1 and 2 had not only sold the plot in question under the misleading circumstances but they had also handed over the paper possession to the Complainant but not the physical/actual possession till date as per Agreement to Sell and registered Sale Deed. In their parawise reply, OPs No.1 and 2 have not given any justification to deny the averment made by the Complainant but had simply denied the averments. No document/evidence had been led by OPs No.1 and 2 to show that they had already handed over the physical possession of the said corner plot to the Complainant. Inspite of receiving the sale consideration of said plot, non-delivery of physical possession is an act of 'deficiency in service'. It is pertinent to 16 C. C. No.25 of 2022 mention that in the present case, the possession has not been delivered yet and as such, the cause of action is continuing one and the Complaint is within the period of limitation.
15. As per the version of the Complainant, neither the basic amenities are available nor any infrastructure is visible on the spot. In support of her version, she has placed reliance upon the photographs Ex.C-6 (colly). In parawise reply, OPs No.1 and 2 had simply denied the version without producing any cogent evidence to rebut the evidence of the Complainant. Moreover, OP No.3 in its written statement had admitted that the partial completion certificate for the area of 50.716 acres falling in Section 74 A, 116, 117, 118 and 119 in this Mega Project has also been obtained by the OP No.1 from the competent Authority-cum-Chief Administrator, GMADA vide Memo No.2022 dated 30.06.2017, subject to the conditions as mentioned therein. The promoter is bound to complete all development works of this project and he is also bound to get the final completion certificate for the entire project as per condition No.(xxiii) of this partial completion certificate dated 30.06.2017. On perusal of above, it is apparent that OPs No.1 and 2 have failed to develop the project in complete as promised. Without delivering the possession of the plot the question of potential user does not arise. OPs No.1 and 2 have also admitted in para No.9 of preliminary objections that Mega Housing Project is still under progress and as such this action/inaction on the part of OPs No.1 and 2 is a case of 'deficiency in service' on their part.
16. Further the grievance of the Complainant is that without 17 C. C. No.25 of 2022 handing over the physical possession of the plot, the OPs No.1 and 2 are demanding the annual subscription fee of Rs.15,281/- vide Ex.C-7. It is also pertinent to mention that OPs No.1 and 2 had failed to adduce on record any document that the actual possession had been delivered to the Complainant and without delivering physical possession of the said plot, OPs No.1 and 2 had no right to demand the said annual subscription fee from the Complainant.
17. As per the version of OP No.3, the Competent Authority for approval of layout plan/revised layout plan of this Mega Project is Chief Town Planner, Punjab not OP No.3 i.e GMADA. The complainant has neither rebutted this version nor has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP No.3. As such, there is no 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of OP No.3.
18. In view of above detailed discussion, we find merit in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the Complainant. Accordingly the Complaint is allowed qua to OPs No.1 and 2 and dismissed qua to OP No.3 as there is no 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP No.3. Accordingly OPs No.1 and 2 are directed :-
(i) to deliver the physical possession of the corner plot bearing No.5300 alongwith basic amenities as promised as well as completion certificate.
(ii) not to charge annual subscription fee of Rs.15,281/- from the Complainant till the handing over the possession of said.
(iii) to pay a lump sum amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.18 C. C. No.25 of 2022
The OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the Complainant would be entitled to interest @18% per annum on the deposited amount from the dates as referred above.
19. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.
20. The Complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-
19. (JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER February 27, 2024.
MM