Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

          On merits, it has been stated that the project was approved on 22.03.2013 and the formal agreement was signed with the Government of Punjab on 14.06.2013; that thereafter some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018, vide supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016 executed with the Government and was further extended upto 13.06.2020; that during the period intervening, exemption from the applicability of provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (PAPR Act) stood granted by the Government on 25.01.2017 and as such it will have retrospective effect and amounts to regularization of the entire project; that delay if any in issuance of the said notification on 25.01.2017 was procedural, which was on the part of the competent authorities;  that once the State Government has not held that the opposite parties had violated the provisions of PAPR Act, as such, this Commission cannot go into the said question; that the complainants have not suffered any loss on account of the reason that the title of their plot was approved later on; that Section 35 of PAPR Act bars the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint arising out of the project in question; that the project has been got registered under RERA; that in order to facilitate the completion of project, the State Government has further extended period upto 31.12.2022, vide notification dated 30.01.2020; that the opposite parties have also sought extension for completion of the project from the competent authorities, which has been granted to them and as such, they are trying to complete the development work, before the extended period granted to them.; that claim of the complainants seeking higher rate of interest on the deposited amount for the period of delay is totally unjustified. Rather, it should be as specified under Section 19 of the RERA i.e. MCLR + 2% interest and that too, in case, they are seeking refund of amount paid; that infact the complainants are entitled to interest @6% p.a. only, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors Versus DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 6239 of 2019, decided on 24.08.2020; that since there is no agreement in the present case, the complainants are entitled to interest @6% p.a. for the period of delay starting from 14.06.2017 because it generally takes four to five years in  completing the project; that the complainants may come forward and make the remaining payment, whereafter, plot no. will be allocated and agreement will also be executed in that regard.

          Now coming to the objection taken by Counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that in the face of registration of the project under the RERA in the year 2017 or Section 35 of the PAPR Act, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred to entertain this complaint arising out in respect of the plot in question. First coming to objection that this Commission is not competent to entertain this complaint as the project has been registered under RERA, it may be stated here that the same does not merit acceptance, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C ivil Appeal No. 3581-3590 of 2020, M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and another, decided on 02.11.2020, wherein it was held that the provisions of RERA Act does not in any way bar the Commission or Forum under the provisions of the CP Act to entertain any consumer complaint. This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5785 of 2019, Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Abhishek Khanna & Others, decided on 11.01.2021.

          Now coming to the objection raised to the effect that in the face of  provisions of Section 35 of the PAPR Act, this Commission is not competent to entertain this complaint, it may be stated here that in the present case, the opposite parties were legally bound to allot plot no. and execute agreement within a reasonable period from the date of booking and then deliver possession of the plot in question to the complainants (which they failed to do so) and, as such,  the nature of such transaction is covered by the expression 'service'.  Our this view is supported by the principle of law laid down in Narne Construction P. Ltd., etc. etc. Vs.  Union of India and Ors. Etc., II (2012) CPJ 4 (SC)  Furthermore, because it is an undisputed fact that the opposite parties neither allocated  plot no.; nor executed buyers' agreement; nor  delivered possession of the plot purchased by the complainants and no cogent and convincing reason has been given for the same, as such, it can very well be said that there is a denial of service to the complainants on the part of the opposite parties, for a very long time, for which the complainants were at liberty to avail remedy by way of filing this consumer complaint. In view of above findings, we can safely say that the provisions of the RERA and PAPR Act will not debar the jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the builder/developer. Since, this complaint involves the consumer dispute and the same is maintainable before this Commission, as such, objection taken in this regard by the opposite parties stands rejected           Now the question arises, as to what amount of compensation, the complainants are entitled to, for delay in delivery of possession of the plot to them and for which period?. Admittedly, in the present case, agreement has not been executed by the opposite parties, which act has been held to be an unfair trade practice on their part. Thus, in the absence of a specific date of delivery of possession in any of the documents, placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that we cannot make the complainants to wait for an indefinite period in the matter. Thus, if we take a reasonable period of three years from the date of booking of the plot i.e. from 17.08.2012, as period of completion of development works at the project site and delivery of possession of the plot in question to the complainants, which comes to 16.08.2015, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Fortune Infrastructure Versus Trevor D' Lima & Ors. (2018) 5 SCC 442, relevant part whereof is reproduced hereunder, that will meet the ends of justice:-