Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

 Meticulously planned infrastructure.  24x7 Hi Tech Security.

 An array of options to choose from independent built-up villas to built up apartments.

 Variable plot sizes starting from 150 sq. yrds (125.41 sq. mtrs.) Above referred evidence has been adduced on record by complainants.

7. No written version of OP No.1 has appeared on record in this case. Affidavit of Gurpinder Brar Senior Manager of OP No.1 is Ex.OP1/A on the record without any defense in written version of OP No.1. He stated that complainants admitted email dated 23.03.2014 that there was no increase in the rates due to slump and hence, they requested for the refund of the amount. He proved email Ex.OP1/2 on the record. He denied any deficiency in service on part of OP No.1 in delivering possession of the allotted plot to complainants. He further stated that some plot holders have even constructed their plots in the projects and have been living there as well. The complainants have not fulfilled the terms and conditions of buyers agreement, as testified by him. He further stated that the residential colony has been developed by OP No.1 after obtaining the approvals and all the basic amenities like roads, sewerage, water and electricity supply have been provided in the project. He stated that role of OP No.1 is limited being agent of promoter PACL India Limited in this case. The promoter has been stopped by Top Court to carry out any kind of activity, hence, the developer cannot pursue it in his individual capacity and it only looks after marketing and sales on behalf of promoter. He proved the copy of order Ex.OP1/4 of Top Court and newspaper cutting Ex.OP1/5 on the file. He denied any deficiency in service on the part of OP No1. OP No.2 is only the financer of the complainant for payment of the installments amount on its behalf to OP No.1-developer. It also led evidence, vide power home sanction letter Ex.OP2/2, home loan agreement Ex.OP2/3, Ex.OP2/4 and permission to mortgage dated 02.11.2011 Ex.OP2/5 and quardripartite agreement dated 30.10.2012 Ex.OP2/6 and statement of account Ex.OP2/7 on the file. The submission of OP No.2 is that it has prior right of recovery being the financer and left out amount, if any, has to be paid to complainant only.

8. From the critical evaluation of evidence on record, we find that no written version of OP No.1 in the shape of written statement appeared before us in this case. Complainants mainly relied upon Clause 10 of buyers agreement Ex.C-4 whereby OPs agreed to deliver possession of the plot to them within three years from the date of official launch of Sector 100 of said township or from the date of signing of flat buyers agreement, whichever is later subject to force majeure circumstances. No force majeure circumstances have been pleaded by OP No.1 in this case, nor they have been established on the record justifying the extension of time in delivery of possession to the consumer by OP No.1. Plot buyers agreement was executed on 08.08.25012, vide Ex. C-4 and possession was required to be delivered by 07.08.2015 to complainants by OPs in this case. So far, possession has not been delivered of the plot by OP No.1 to complainants, despite the fact that the year 2017 is coming to close. The total sale price of the plot was Rs.72,50,000/- as given in plot buyers agreement Ex.C-4. Complainants have paid more than 95% of the amount of sale consideration to OP No.1, which fact is proved on record by virtue of receipts Ex.C-5, Ex.C-5/1 to Ex.C-5/34 and the same fact has also been stated on oath by Surinder Singh Mittal GPA of complainants in his testimony, vide his affidavit Ex.C-A, particularly para No.5 of the affidavit on the record. When OP No.1 has received more than 95% of sale price from complainants and as such latter cannot be faulted in this regard. OP No.1 was duty bound to deliver possession of the plot to complainants within scheduled time of three years. Even the year 2017 is coming to close and possession of the plot has not yet been delivered in a developed state to complainants. Non-delivery of possession within schedule time despite receipt of sale consideration is deceptive and unfair trade practice in our view. The hard earned money of the customers is being utilized by the developers without performing their own duties. The statement of account is issued by OP No.2 bank in the account of Karan Mittal, vide Ex.C-5/35 releasing amounts from time to time for the same. Even Government of Punjab has issued instructions, vide Ex.C-7 dated 02.09.2017 for obtaining completion certificate from the competent authorities or partial completion certificate. OP No.1 received the entire consideration of more than 95% of sale price from complainants and issued receipts to complainants in that regard. The complainants obtained loan from OP No.2-Bank and loan agreement is Ex.OP2/3 and power home sanction letter is Ex.OP2/2 and application for power home loan is Ex.OP2/1 on the record. Permission to mortgage by OP No.1 to Axis Bank is Ex.OP2/5 on the record. The quadripartite agreement dated 30.10.2012 executed between complainants and OP No.1 and OP No.2 and M/s. PACL Limited is Ex.OP-2/6 on the file.

10. We find that even plot buyers agreement Ex.C-4 was also executed between the parties viz. OP No.1 and PACL Limited a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. PACL Limited is also a party to plot buyers agreement Ex.C-4 on the record in this transaction. The version of OP No.1 is that it is only agent of PACL Limited and PACL Limited has been virtually developing the project in this case. Ex.OP1/4 order of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.133301 of 2015 titled as Subrata Bhattacharya Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of India, Top Court passed its order that where PACL Limited is concerned in any dispute or before any Court, SEBI shall constitute a Committee for disposing of the land purchased by above company so that the sale proceeds can be paid to investors, who have invested their funds in the company for purchase of the land. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India, has been designated as Chairman of the said Committee by Apex Court. The Committee has been authorized by Apex Court to collect relevant record including title itself and so on and a Nodal Officer shall be appointed, who shall be incharge of funds collected and shall have a liaison with the Committee and shall also work as a Secretary of the said Committee. The Nodal Officer issued public notice Ex.OP-1/5. The Apex Court has ordered not to part with or share record and to approach the Committee etc., wherein PACL Ltd. has a right or interest in order to repay customers/investors of PACL Limited here in this case, PACL Limited is also a party to prior agreement and as such the intervention of the above Hon'ble Committee is a indispensable and mandatory in this case, as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. Since OP No.1 has been found deficient in service in this case, hence, complainants are held entitled to refund the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of their deposit till actual payment from OP No.1. Complainants are also entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- as cost of litigation. It is made clear in this order that since PACL Limited has some concern in the matter as per buyers agreement, hence the amount involved in this case shall be recovered from OP No.1 through the instrumentality of above Hon'ble Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Chairmanship of his lordship Hon'ble R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India. The Hon'ble Committee shall then, disburse the amount to the complainants as per directions of the top Court.