ORDER (ORAL) This Revision Petition by two companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint, is directed against the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 51/2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 16.09.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the District Forum) in Complaint no. 518/2014. By said order, the District Forum, while allowing the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1, had directed the Petitioners and one M/s. Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No. 1 in the complaint, to jointly or severally, refund to the complainant an amount of 7,10,000/-, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit of money by two complainants with Respondent No. 2, the Developer. The District Forum also awarded a compensation of 1 lac to the complainant on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by him.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that; the Respondent No. 1, Siswan Paradise Private Ltd. floated a project titled as Siswan Paradise offering farmhouses as single units. Allured by the advertisement, the complainant booked one farmhouse, vide agreement dated 06.06.2013. The possession of the said farmhouse was to be delivered within three years from the date of the agreement. However, it appears that having come across an advertisement, issued by Greater Mohali Area Development Authority on 03.11.2012, informing the public at large, that project Siswan Paradise had no legal sanctity, the complainant approached the Respondent No. 2, the developer, and the Petitioners in this Petition, for refund of total amount deposited by him with Respondent No. 2, herein. Having failed to elicit any positive response from any of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, the complainant filed the complaint, in which the aforesaid directions came to be issued.
3. Being aggrieved by the said directions, the petitioner unsuccessfully took the matter in further appeal before the State Commission. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. We have heard ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner. The short grievance of the petitioners is that being only the marketing agents for the said project, they cannot be held liable for refund of the amount collected by the Developer i.e. Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd.
5. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:- If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.
6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate. Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project. Therefore, it is beyond ones comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible.
7. We do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Ld. State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. ......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER