- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bajwa Developers Limited v. Mohkam Singh
Structured Summary of the Opinion — State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (dated 17 November 2017)
Factual and Procedural Background
This consolidated opinion concerns nine First Appeals (Nos. 763, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771 and 772 of 2017) and associated miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay, all filed by Bajwa Developers Limited (through its Managing Director and its Manager (Sales)) against orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali), dated 29.8.2017 and 27.9.2017.
The facts (taken from First Appeal No. 763 of 2017 and similar in the other appeals) are: the complainant booked a 1BHK flat in Sector 74-A (Village F21), Mohali by executing an Agreement to Sell (dated 27.8.2012 in FA No.763). The complainant paid substantial instalments (in FA No.763: Rs. 7,92,500 out of Rs. 12,50,100), the possession date promised by the developer was missed and later extended, and as of the proceedings no construction had taken place at the site. The complainant issued a legal notice (dated 10.2.2016) seeking either possession or refund with interest and compensation; no response was received.
The District Forum allowed the complaints (in the relevant matters) and directed the opposite parties (Bajwa Developers Ltd.) to refund the deposited amounts with interest, pay compensation and litigation costs. Bajwa Developers filed these First Appeals challenging the District Forum's findings; along with the appeals, applications for condonation of delay of 38 days were filed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the District Forum erred in allowing the complaints and holding that Bajwa Developers committed deficiency of service and adopted unfair trade practice warranting refund of amounts paid with interest and payment of compensation and litigation costs.
- Whether the complainants were justified in withholding further instalment payments given non-development of the project and absence of possession within the promised period.
- Whether Bajwa Developers violated provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), specifically Sections 3, 5, 9 and 12, by launching the project and collecting monies without required approvals and without depositing funds as mandated.
- Condonation of delay: whether the applications for condonation of delay (38 days) in filing the appeals should be allowed.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant(s)' Position
- The complainant had executed an Agreement to Sell and paid substantial instalments expecting possession by a specified date; possession was not delivered and no construction activity occurred at the site.
- The complainant served a legal notice seeking refund but received no response; hence sought directions for refund of the deposited amount with interest, compensation for harassment and litigation costs.
- The complainant contended non-payment of further instalments was justified due to lack of development and non-delivery of possession within the stipulated/reasonable time.
Appellants / Opposite Parties' Arguments (Bajwa Developers Limited)
- Preliminary defence: the complainant committed default in making further instalment payments as per the payment schedule; amounts deposited were liable to be forfeited as per the Agreement (biana / earnest money).
- The appellants contended approvals were under process and possession was delayed due to time required for obtaining approvals; LOI from GMADA was received on 19.5.2014 (as per their submissions).
- The appellants denied the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaints and the District Forum's order.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Consumer Complaint No.211 of 2015 (Manjit Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 16.3.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | The court treated this decision as directly covering the present appeals and applied the same reasoning. |
| Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2016 (Gagandeep Singh v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) — decided 2.3.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Used as a precedent to hold that the present matters are covered and to dismiss the appeals in line with that decision. |
| Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 (Sneh Sood v. M/s Bajwa Devlopers Ltd.) — decided 23.2.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Applied for consistency; present appeals decided in view of its order. |
| Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2016 (Amarjit Singh v. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) — decided 23.2.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Followed as covering precedent for the issues in present appeals. |
| Consumer Complaint No.203 of 2016 (Kuldeep Sharma v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) — decided 26.7.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Taken as precedent; the Commission concluded present matters were squarely covered by it. |
| Consumer Complaint No.9 of 2017 (Ajay Sharma and another v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) — decided 23.8.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Applied to decide the current appeals similarly. |
| Consumer Complaint No.10 of 2017 (Rajnish Sood v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) — decided 23.8.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Used to support dismissal of the present appeals in line with prior conclusions. |
| Consumer Complaint No.301 of 2016 (Surinder Pal Singh vs. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and another) — decided 4.10.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Followed as authority for disposing the present appeals similarly. |
| Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2017 (Amit Baddhan v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 3.10.2017 | Identical matter previously decided by the Commission. | Referenced as controlling/consistent authority and applied to the present appeals. |
| First Appeal No.753 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Dr. Manjit Kaur Sharma) — decided 22.2.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Relied upon to dispose of present appeals in the same terms. |
| First Appeal No.754 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Pooja Khanna) — decided 22.2.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Applied by the court to reach the same conclusion in the present appeals. |
| First Appeal No.755 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Rajan Vashishat) — decided 22.2.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Used as precedent to support the present decision. |
| First Appeal No.860 of 2016 (Keshav Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Referenced and applied consistently to the present appeals. |
| First Appeal No.861 of 2016 (Harleen Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Applied to decide the present appeals identically. |
| First Appeal No.862 of 2016 (Gurdev Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Used as controlling authority for the present appeals. |
| First Appeal No.863 of 2016 (Sarabjit Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Followed to dismiss the present appeals in limine. |
| First Appeal No.922 of 2016 (Amit Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Applied to the present appeals for consistent outcome. |
| First Appeal No.923 of 2016 (Devraj Chandel v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) — decided 11.4.2017 | Identical/related matter previously decided by the Commission. | Referenced and applied in disposing the present appeals. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission proceeded by reference to the facts and evidence on record in FA No.763 (and noted that the other appeals raise substantially the same questions). The court's analysis, in summary and strictly as presented in the opinion, was as follows:
- Admissions and non-development: The amounts paid by the complainant were admitted by the opposite parties. Possession promised by dates mentioned in the Agreement to Sell was not delivered and, importantly, there was no development at the site and no construction activity showing near-term completion.
- Failure to produce title/approval documents: The opposite parties did not place on record documents showing ownership of the land on which the project was to be established nor the sanction/approval of competent authority for the project. The court observed that flats appear to have been sold without ownership and without necessary permissions.
- Violation of PAPRA: The court found that by launching the scheme, collecting money and executing Agreements to Sell without necessary approvals and without required compliance, the opposite parties violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), specifically mentioning Sections 3, 5, 9 and 12 as contravened (as stated in the opinion).
- Use of funds and trust obligation: The court characterised the sums received as trust money which ought to have been applied towards construction (and, as per section 9 of PAPRA as referenced in the opinion, deposited in a scheduled bank). The court noted that the developers used the funds for their business and earned profits therefrom, while performance/delivery was not forthcoming.
- Misrepresentation and unfair trade practice: From the evidence and lack of rebuttal, the court concluded that the developers had misrepresented facts regarding allotment/land/title and timing of construction/possession; these acts amounted to unfair trade practice and deception, causing loss and injury to the complainant.
- Consumer Protection Act (C.P. Act) principles: The court emphasised the benevolent object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and stated that there was no evidence to rebut the complainant's case. The Commission referred to settled principles that compensation should be commensurate and not arbitrary, and that a builder is obligated to deliver possession within a reasonable time; failure to do so attracts liability to refund with interest and compensation.
- Reliance on prior Commission decisions: The court expressly recorded a line of prior, similar decisions by the Commission involving Bajwa Developers and concluded that the present matters were squarely covered by those earlier orders; accordingly, the court decided the appeals in view of those orders.
- Condonation applications: For each appeal the separate application for condonation of delay (38 days) was allowed "as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal." The main appeals were then disposed of in alignment with FA No.763's outcome.
Holding and Implications
Holding (core rulings):
- DISMISSED IN LIMINE — The principal appeal (FA No.763 of 2017) was dismissed in limine; the Commission found no infirmity or perversity in the District Forum's order which had allowed the complaint and directed refund with interest, compensation and litigation costs.
- All other First Appeals listed (Nos. 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771 and 772 of 2017) were dismissed in the same terms, being covered by the findings and precedent established in FA No.763 and the prior decisions cited.
- Each miscellaneous application for condonation of delay (seeking condonation of 38 days) was allowed, subject to the caveat noted ("subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal").
Immediate consequences for the parties:
- The District Forum's orders (which required refund of the deposited amounts with interest at 12% per annum from dates of deposit till actual refund, payment of compensation (e.g., Rs. 25,000 in FA No.763) and litigation costs (e.g., Rs. 10,000 in FA No.763)) stand confirmed by this Commission order.
- The appellants had deposited Rs. 25,000 at the time of filing each appeal; the opinion directs that this amount, along with any accrued interest, shall be remitted by the Commission's registry to the District Forum after expiry of 45 days from sending certified copies of the order, and the complainants may approach the District Forum for release of the amounts.
- The court applied existing Commission decisions to resolve these appeals and did not purport to lay down a novel legal principle beyond application of prior orders and established consumer protection principles as articulated in the opinion.
Broader implications: The Commission explicitly relied on numerous prior decisions involving the same developer and similar factual matrix; the opinion therefore demonstrates the Commission's approach of consistency in cases where PAPRA non-compliance, lack of approvals, non-possession and misuse of purchaser funds are established. The decision, as presented, applies settled consumer-protection remedial principles rather than announcing new law.
End of summary. This structured summary is strictly limited to information expressly contained in the provided opinion and does not include any external facts or inferences not present in the text.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
1. Misc. Application No.2364 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Mohkam Singh s/o Jai Singh, resident of Ward No.14, Behind Ladda Petrol Pump, Ellanabad, District Sirsa, Haryana. ..Respondent-Complainant
2. First Appeal No.765 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Davinder Kumar s/o Late Shri Budh Ram, resident of House No.149, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 ..Respondent-Complainant
3. Misc. Application No.2368 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.766 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Narinder Singh Bath s/o Kashmir Singh, resident of HIG 640-A, Phase-11, Mohali. ..Respondent-Complainant
4. Misc. Application No.2370 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.767 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Manjit Singh s/o Shaja Singh, resident of VPO Kumbrah, Sector 68, Mohali. ..Respondent-Complainant
5. First Appeal No.768 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus
1. Raghu Mohindru s/o Shri Anup Kumar Mohindru and
2. Sonia Mohindru w/o Shri Raghu Mohindru, Both residents of House No.668, Phase-7, Mohali. ..Respondents-Complainants
6. Misc. Application No.2374 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.769 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Versus Kulwinder Singh s/o Khar Singh, resident of Khizarbad, Tehsil and District Mohali, Punjab. ..Respondent-Complainant
7. Misc. Application No.2376 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.770 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Gursewak Singh s/o Shri Sadhu Singh, resident of Maholi Kalan, District Sangrur, Punjab. ..Respondent-Complainant
8. Misc. Application No.2378 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.771 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Rajesh Kumar s/o Shri Ramchander, Resident of House No.480, Sector 4, Kurukshetra, Haryana. ..Respondent-Complainant
9. Misc. Application No.2380 of 2017 In/and First Appeal No.772 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.11.2017 Date of decision : 17.11.2017
1. Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Satyawan s/o Jit Singh, resident of House No.2099, Sector 52, Chandigarh. ..Respondent-Complainant First Appeals against the different orders dated 29.8.2017 and 27.9.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:- For the appellants : Shri Manoj Vashistha, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: All the above mentioned 9 First Appeals have been preferred against the different orders dated 29.8.2017 and 27.9.2017 passed First Appeal No.763 of 2017 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) (in short, District Forum) and are being decided by this common order, as common questions of law and facts, except some minor variations, here and there, are involved in these First Appeals. The facts are taken from First Appeal No.763 of 2017. Along with this appeal an application for condonation of delay of 38 days has also been filed.
2. It would be apposite to mention at the outset that hereinafter the parties will be referred as have been arrayed before the District Forum. M.A. No.2364 of 2017:
3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
4. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Facts of the Complaint:
5. Brief facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased one BHK BR No.1623, Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Mohali, Sector 74A, 117 measuring 450 square feet (approximately) for a total consideration of 12,50,100/- from the opposite parties, vide Agreement to Sell dated 27.8.2012. The complainant had paid a total sum of 7,92,500/- through instalments to the opposite parties. The remaining instalment was to be paid at the time of possession of the flat. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, the opposite parties had assured that the possession of the apartment shall be First Appeal No.763 of 2017 handed over to the complainant on 3.12.2012, which was extended to 10.4.2013 by the opposite parties. Till date no building has been erected qua the apartment nor there is any construction work going on at the site. The opposite parties were extending the time on one pretext or the other. Failing to get any authentic response from the opposite parties the complainant got issued legal notice dated 10.2.2016 but no response has been received from the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint for issuance of directions to the opposite parties to either hand over possession of the flat or to refund the deposited amount of 7,92,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of payment till realization and 80,000/- as litigation expenses along with adequate compensation for harassment. Defence of the opposite parties:
6. In the reply the opposite parties took preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has committed default in making payment of instalments. As per Agreement, the amount deposited by the complainant is liable to be forfeited. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the complaint. Approvals of the project are under process and it will take time for getting the approval and handing over the possession of the flat. LOI was received by the opposite parties from the GMADA on 19.5.2014. The complainant had paid only 7,92,500/- out of 12,52,000/- and as per the terms of the agreement, the amount of biana is liable to be forfeited. On merits, denying all the averments First Appeal No.763 of 2017 made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Finding of the District Forum:
7. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide order dated 29.8.2017 with the following directions to the opposite parties:- (a) to refund the deposited amount of 7,92,500/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund. (b) to pay to the complainant compensation of 25,000/- on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the opposite party; and (c) to pay 10,000/-, as litigation costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties for setting aside the impugned order.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Contentions of the Parties:
9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the District Forum committed an illegality while allowing the complaint by ignoring the evidence produced on the record; from which it stands proved that the complainant himself was at fault in not depositing the instalments as per the Payment Schedule. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 Therefore, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service or that it adopted unfair trade practice. The fault, if any, was on the part of the complainant, who failed to deposit all the instalments as per Agreement. He prayed that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Consideration of Contentions:
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties before us.
11. At the outset it is pertinent to mention that identical matters have already been decided by this Commission in the following cases:
i) Consumer Complaint No.211 of 2015 (Manjit Singh (since deceased) through his LRs v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 16.3.2017; ii) Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2016 (Gagandeep Singh v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 2.3.2017; iii) Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 (Sneh Sood v. M/s Bajwa Devlopers Ltd.) decided on 23.2.2017; iv) Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2016 (Amarjit Singh v. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.2.2017;
v) Consumer Complaint No.203 of 2016 (Kuldeep Sharma v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 26.7.2017; First Appeal No.763 of 2017 vi) Consumer Complaint No.9 of 2017 (Ajay Sharma and another v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.8.2017; vii) Consumer Complaint No.10 of 2017 (Rajnish Sood v. Bajwa Developers Ltd. and anr.) decided on 23.8.2017; viii) Consumer Complaint No.301 of 2016 (Surinder Pal Singh vs. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. and another) decided on 4.10.2017; ix) Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2017 (Amit Baddhan v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 3.10.2017;
x) First Appeal No.753 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Dr. Manjit Kaur Sharma) decided on 22.2.2017; xi) First Appeal No.754 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Pooja Khanna) decided on 22.2.2017; xii) First Appeal No.755 of 2016 (M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. v. Rajan Vashishat) decided on 22.2.2017; xiii) First Appeal No.860 of 2016 (Keshav Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xiv) First Appeal No.861 of 2016 (Harleen Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xv) First Appeal No.862 of 2016 (Gurdev Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xvi) First Appeal No.863 of 2016 (Sarabjit Kaur v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; xvii) First Appeal No.922 of 2016 (Amit Kumar v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017; and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 xviii) First Appeal No.923 of 2016 (Devraj Chandel v. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.) decided on 11.4.2017.
12. The matter in the present appeals is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so we intend to decide the present appeals in view of orders passed in above said cases.
13. According to the complainant, he purchased the flat in question from the opposite parties for a total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a sum of 7,92,500/- in all. The payment so made by the complainant has been admitted by the opposite parties in their written statement. The possession of the flat, complete in all respects, was to be delivered to the complainant upto 3.12.2012, which was extended to 10.1.2013 by the opposite parties. Since there was no development at the site and there was no possibility of completion of the project or delivery of possession of the flat in question in near future, therefore, the complainant stopped making further payments. Thereafter he served legal notice upon the opposite parties for the refund of the deposited amount.
14. The opposite parties have not annexed any document showing ownership of the property over which the project was to be established nor the sanction of the competent authority with respect to the land has been annexed on record. It appears that without owning the property, the flats in the said project were sold, which is a clear unfair trade practice and sheer violation of PAPRA.
15. The amount has been utilized by the opposite parties, which is trust money, for earning profits in their business. However, the complainant was ready to pay the remaining instalments but there First Appeal No.763 of 2017 was no development at the site. There is no fun in first paying the instalments and thereafter seeking refund of the same. Since there was no development at the site, therefore, the complainant was well within his rights not to pay further instalments. The opposite parties have also violated the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) by not obtaining the necessary sanctions/permissions from the competent authority before launching the scheme and collecting money from the people. Even the land was also not in their name when the project was launched. Therefore, the opposite parties violated Sections 3, 5, 9 and 12 of PAPRA.
16. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the Project. The amount received from the complainant-buyer was required to be deposited in the schedule Bank, as per section 9 of papra and we wonder where that amount had been going. They are not to play the game at the cost of others. When they insist upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the Agreement.
17. By executing the Agreement to Sell Ex.C-1 and receiving the amount more than 25,000/- the opposite parties violated the provisions of PAPRA. They were not competent to execute the Agreement in respect of the flat and to receive different amounts. These acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to adoption of unfair trade practice. In these circumstances the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount so paid by him. The opposite First Appeal No.763 of 2017 parties cannot withhold his amount and are liable to refund the same along with interest.
18. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. There is not an iota of evidence led by the opposite parties to rebut the averments made in the complaint by way of authenticated documentary evidence. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the flat in a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services
i.e. allotment of land and construction in a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with the opposite parties, he would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the flat within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the flat booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and First Appeal No.763 of 2017 would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the flat, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of constructing the flats, as mentioned in section 9 of papra. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission.
19. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
20. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.765 of 2017:
21. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK Flat No.BR(356) 1356 measuring 450 square feet, in F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,000/- and paid a total sum of 6,88,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
22. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.765 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
23. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.766 of 2017: M.A. No.2368 of 2017:
24. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal. First Appeal No.763 of 2017
25. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
26. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK Flat No.BR No.1234, measuring 450 square feet, Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
27. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.766 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
28. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.767 of 2017: M.A. No.2370 of 2017:
29. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
30. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
31. In this case the complainant booked 1 BHK BR No.1235, measuring 450 square feet , Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,000/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
32. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.767 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
33. The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may First Appeal No.763 of 2017 approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.768 of 2017:
34. In this case the complainant booked one flat 1 BHK 18/9 measuring 450 square feet in F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- (rounded off to 12,00,000/-) and paid a total sum of 3,00,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
35. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.768 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
36. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainants may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.763 of 2017 First Appeal No.769 of 2017: M.A. No.2374 of 2017:
37. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
38. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
39. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1614, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- and paid a total sum of 8,40,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
40. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.769 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
41. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above First Appeal No.763 of 2017 amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.770 of 2017: M.A. No.2376 of 2017:
42. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
43. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
44. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1232, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 10,63,700/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
45. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.770 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
46. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the First Appeal No.763 of 2017 sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.771 of 2017: M.A. No.2378 of 2017:
47. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
48. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
49. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1863, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,150/- and paid a total sum of 6,70,000/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
50. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.771 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine.
51. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with First Appeal No.763 of 2017 interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. First Appeal No.772 of 2017: M.A. No.2380 of 2017:
52. This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal.
53. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions for the view we are taking in the main appeal. Main Case:
54. In this case the complainant booked one BHK BR No.1230, measuring 450 square feet in Khata Number Sunny Khasra Number Apartment of Village F21, Sector 74-A, 117, Mohali for total sale consideration of 12,50,100/- and paid a total sum of 5,00,300/- to the opposite parties. Rest of the averments are same as have been made in FA No.763 of 2017. The opposite parties also made similar averments in their reply as made in FA No.763 of 2017. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties as have been raised in FA No.763 of 2017.
55. In view of the findings recorded in FA No.763 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.772 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms in limine. First Appeal No.763 of 2017
56. The appellants/opposite parties had deposited a sum of 25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER November 17, 2017 Bansal
Alert