STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

1. Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 Date of Institution : 24.10.2017 Date of Decision : 23.01.2018 Ajit Singh son of Sh.Jawand Singh resident of H.No.14, Sector 70, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

1. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), Site Office Behind Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran Road, Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its General Secretary Paraminder Kaur.

2. Navjeet Singh, President of Sky Rock City Welfare Society, SCO 668, Top Floor, Sector -70, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Presently confined in Central Jail, Patiala) .Opposite Parties

2. Consumer Complaint No.918 of 2017 Date of Institution : 24.10.2017 Date of Decision : 23.01.2018 Hazara Singh son of Sh.Chet Singh resident of H.No.1535, Phase-5, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

1. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), Site Office Behind Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran Road, Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its General Secretary Paraminder Kaur.

2. Navjeet Singh, President of Sky Rock City Welfare Society, SCO 668, Top Floor, Sector -70, SAS Nagar (Mohali). .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017

3. Consumer Complaint No.919 of 2017 Date of institution : 24.10.2017 Date of decision : 23.01.2018 Sh.D.S.Rana, son of Late Sh.Narayan Singh, resident of H.No.419, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh. .Complainant Versus

1. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), Site Office Behind Chandigarh Group of Colleges, Landran Road, Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its General Secretary Paraminder Kaur.

2. Navjeet Singh, President of Sky Rock City Welfare Society, SCO 668, Top Floor, Sector -70, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (Presently confined in Central Jail, Patiala) .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.A.K.Handa, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT : All the above referred 3 Consumer Complaints 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 complaints. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017. Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 Facts of the Complaint:

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties gave a representation to the general public that membership was open to become a member of the opposite party. They further stated that the development work was already in full swing on the said land and possession of the plots would be handed over to the members within two years. On 01.08.2011, the complainant deposited 10,000/- as membership fee on believing their statement. The complainant opted for 200 sq. yards residential plot. The request of the complainant was accepted and plot of 200 sq. yards at the rate of 12,000/- per square yard was allocated to the complainant at the total price of 24,00,000/-. On 05.01.2012, the complainant deposited a sum of 6,00,000/- with the opposite parties. Another payment of 14,52,000/- was made vide cheque No.368546 dated 21.03.2012, for 10,02,000/- and 4,50,000/- in cash against receipt dated 01.03.2012. As per the ledger statement of the opposite parties, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.21,12,000/-, vide receipts/cheques & ledger statement Ex.C-1 to C-4, Ex.C-9 & Ex.C-10, upto 31.03.2012. The complainant was assured after receiving the said amount that the plot would be delivered to him within one month. On 20.09.2012, a provisional allotment letter was issued to the complainant, allotting him a plot No.E-15, in Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali of 200 sq. yards. On demanding the plot by the complainant, the opposite parties put off the matter on one pretext or the other. The opposite parties gave a discount of 5% of remaining payment to the complainant being a good customer. Thereafter, the complainant deposited 1,50,000/- Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 vide cheque No.417591 on 10.11.2014 and 1,08,000/-, vide cheque No.417592 dated 10.11.2014. In the draw of lots, the complainant was allotted Plot No.275 in Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar. The complainant then deposited EDC / IDC charges amounting to 1,50,000/-, vide cheque No.168072 dated 27.04.2015. The complainant has deposited in total a sum of 24,70,000/- i.e. 96% of allotment price of plot including EDC at the rate of 1,500/- per sq. yard and IDC charges at the rate of 1,000/- per sq. yard. It is further averred that when the complainant did not receive any communication from the opposite party, he personally visited the site where the alleged plots were allotted and he was shocked to see that no development work regarding basic amenities had started. The land was lying vacant and it was merely a bare piece of land. On seeing the condition of the land, the complainant could make out that there was no possibility of starting of development work in the near future. The complainant was further shocked when he came to know through various newspapers and other buyers of the residential plots of the Society that the opposite party had collected money from him despite not having approvals from the appropriate authorities. The complainant also came to know from reliable sources that many FIRs had been registered against opposite party No.2 and many cases were pending against him in various Courts. The President of opposite party No.1-society is now behind the bars and is confined in Central Jail, Patiala. As such, there is no possibility of completion of the project and delivery of possession of the plot in near future. It is further averred that the complainant requested the opposite parties time and again either to hand over the possession Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 of the plot or refund his money along with interest. The opposite parties neither handed over the possession of the plot nor refunded the amount deposited by him. The act and conduct of the opposite parties, in not developing the project; non-delivery of possession and non- refunding the amount deposited by the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has, thus, prayed for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the entire amount of 24,70,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Seventy Thousand only) alongwith interest @18% p.a.; ii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation for damages caused to him; iii) to pay 55,000/- as litigation expenses. Defence of the Opposite Parties:

3. Upon notice, opposite parties filed their joint reply in which they took preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer of the Society and no consumer dispute has arisen in the present case. There is clause 17 in the Memorandum of Society, which provides an arbitration clause and, as such, the dispute if any, is liable to be referred for arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is averred that the Society aims to work for the welfare of its Members and among other things, wants to provide affordable housing to its members. In pursuance of its objectives, the Society has been trying to provide plots and flats for them and thus had initiated a scheme to purchase land and after developing it, provide houses and flats to its Members. Thereafter some members had applied for the said project. The society had provided terms and Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 conditions including a time schedule to the members to make payments in instalments. The amount received from them was utilized to purchase land, carry out development works and to make statutory payments to GMADA etc. It is further averred that due to the earnest efforts of the society, it was able to purchase significant land holdings. After completion of the formalities and statutory requirements, the society was granted the licence of promoter. The CLU was also granted to the society by the competent authority. The other necessary approvals and the development licence were also granted to the Society. Thereafter the society has been carrying out the development work at the site, which has made significant progress. Subsequently allotment letters of plots had been issued to the eligible members and the Society had offered possession to the eligible members. However, the complainant failed to make the entire payment due and did not come forward to complete the other formalities like providing his residence proof, PAN card and signing other documents. It is further averred that the complainant had applied for the plot in question in order to later sell it and earn profit. However, due to slump in the housing market and due to the crash in prices, the complainant now does not wish to take the possession of the plot applied for by him, after paying the balance amount due. The complainant being a speculator and having applied for the plot to earn profit, cannot be considered a consumer and is thus, not entitled to any relief from this Commission. It is further averred that the complainant cannot claim refund at this stage as he never submitted any requisition for the refund from the Society and that the dispute, if any, is liable to be Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 referred for arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On merits, the purchase of the plot in question by the complainant in the manner stated in the complaint has been admitted. However, it is denied that he has paid the entire amount towards the price of the plot, in question, and he has also not completed other formalities required. He also failed to make payment of Internal Development Charges and External Development Charges, as per the revised rates. Denying all other averments made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Evidence of the Complainant:

4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CA, and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11, whereas opposite parties tendered in evidence the affidavit of Parminder Kaur, wife of Navjeet Singh, as Ex.OPA and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2. Contentions of the Parties:

5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant booked a residential plot measuring

200 square yards in the project of the opposite parties by paying 10,000/-, as membership fee, vide receipt dated 01.08.2011, Ex.C-1, containing terms and conditions. The total price of the plot was 24,00,000/-, against which he deposited 24,70,000/-, vide receipts/cheques/ledger statement Ex.C1 to Ex.C-4, Ex.C-9 & Ex.C-10. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said receipts, the Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 possession of the plot was to be handed over within 36 months from the date of allotment, as per Clause 13 of the Provisional Allotment Letter, Ex.C-7. However, the opposite parties failed to develop the plot/project. At the site, there was no development of the plots/project. The complainant came to know through news published in various newspapers that the President of opposite party No.1; namely, Navjeet Singh was arrested by the Police for playing fraud with the innocent people by issuing more plots, than the land available and even he has been sentenced for non-compliance of the orders passed by the Consumer Foras in many cases. The complainant approached the offices of the opposite parties repeatedly, but the same were found closed. The opposite parties are not in a position to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, as even the licence issued to them by GMADA has been cancelled, which has not been got renewed from the competent authority. It has been, thus, contended that there is no possibility of development of the site and delivery of possession of the plot, in question, in near future. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, they are liable to refund the deposited amount, along with interest, compensation and costs.

7. Per contra, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant has not disclosed the terms and conditions of the agreement and has approached this Commission by concealing material facts. He further contended that as per Clause (4) of the said terms and conditions, which are signed by the complainant, if the complainant does not want to continue even after paying some Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 instalments, the entire amount shall be refunded with interest after the expiry of period of three years from the date of requisition. However, there is no requisition made by the complainant for refund of the amount deposited by him. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any refund and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions:

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the sides.

9. 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.141 of 2017 (Mohinder Singh v. Sky Rock City Welfare Society Regd.) along with bunch of

38 similar Consumer Complaints decided on 21.12.2017; ii) Consumer Complaint No.201 of 2017 (Paramjit Singh v. The Sky Rock City Welfare Society Regd. and others) along with bunch of 6 similar Consumer Complaints decided on 21.12.2017.

10. The matter in the present complaints is squarely covered by the orders passed in above said cases, so we intend to decide the present complaints in view of orders passed in above said cases.

11. Admittedly, the complainant became member of the opposite party-Society by paying a sum of 10,000/- in cash, vide receipt Ex.C1 and he was allotted a residential plot measuring 200 square yards, vide Letter of Provisional Allotment, Ex.C-7. The total cost of the plot was 24,00,000/-, against which the complainant deposited a sum of 24,70,000/-, vide receipts/statement Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4, Ex.C-9 & Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 Ex.C-10. As per Clause No.13 of terms and conditions contained in provisional allotment letter, the physical possession of the plot was to be delivered within 36 months from the date of allotment of the plot, but the same was not delivered within that period. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties repeatedly and requested for refund of the amount deposited by him. However, the opposite parties neither delivered the possession of the fully developed plot in question nor refunded the amount deposited by the complainant. There is no possibility of completion of the project and delivery of possession of the plot, in question, in near future.

11. So far as the arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Society is concerned, it is relevant to mention that the Honble Supreme Court and Honble National Commission have held in so many cases that the remedy, provided under Section 3 of C.P. Act is an independent and additional remedy and existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement to settle disputes through arbitration will not debar the Consumer Fora, to entertain the complaint, filed by the consumer.

12. As per Section 9 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act (in short, PAPRA), every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

13. Further, as per Section 12 of the PAPRA, if the builder fails to deliver possession of the plot/apartment by the specified date, then the Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest.

14. The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995 were framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA and according to Rules 8 & 17 , it has been provided as under:-

8. Supply of copies of documents. - The promoter on demand shall supply true copies, on payment of reasonable charges, of the following documents, namely :- (a) Title deed of land, certificate of the attorney at-law or an advocate of not less than seven years standing, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 3 and copies of the advertisement issued under section 4; (b) Copy of the consent of the land owner, if the land does not belong to the promoter as referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 3; (c) Design of apartment, agreement with an architect and a contractor, referred to in clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3; (d) Copy of occupation certificate referred to in section 14; and (e) Certificate of registration granted under sub-section (2) of section 21 and in case of colony, the permission granted under sub-section (2) of section 5.

17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment. The opposite parties had been advertising allotment of plots, without any licence & permission and had been misleading the complainant and general public.

15. 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. The opposite parties are not to play the game at the cost of others. When the builders insist upon the performance of Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 the promise by the consumers, they are to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the Agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply with the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop the project, as they have no CLU or permission to launch the project in question. Thus, the delay in not delivering the possession of plot within the agreed period and non-refund of the amount deposited by the complainant with them amounts to deficiency in service on their part, for which the complainant is to be suitably compensated.

16. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is 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. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the plot in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of plot 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 plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 the plot 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 Rules and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the plot, 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 developing/building the plots/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. To get the relief, the complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In such circumstances, ever increasing cost of construction and the damages for loss of opportunities caused which resulted in injury to the complainant, are also required to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation. In addition to that he is also entitled to the compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by him on account of the betrayal by the opposite parties in shattering his hope of Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 getting the plot by waiting for all this period. In these circumstances, the complainant deserves suitable compensation.

17. The licence issued to opposite parties-Society has already been cancelled by GMADA, which has not been renewed so far. There is no sign of development at the site. Furthermore, the President of opposite party-Society is behind bars and is facing trial in so many cases. Thus, the possession of the plot, in question, is not likely to be delivered in near future. In such circumstances, we deem it fit to award refund of the amount deposited by the complainant to him, along with interest and compensation.

18. Honble National Commission in case Kamal Sood v. DLF Universal Ltd. 2007 (3) C.P.J. 7 (NC), in similar set of circumstances, where the builder was at fault in not obtaining permission for construction in advance before issuing advertisement and collected money from customers without having any licence, ordered for refund of deposited amount along with interest at the rate of 12%, besides compensation.

19. In view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the amount of 24,70,000/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses.

20. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy thereof. Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 Consumer Complaint No.918 of 2017:

21. In this case, the complainant purchased the residential plot measuring 150 square yards at the rate of 12,000/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of 18,00,000/- and he paid 21,17,500/-, vide receipts/cheques/ledger account Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10. Rest of the averments are same as made in CC No.917 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of 21,17,500/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their reply is similar as taken in C.C. No.917 of 2017. Also similar arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as have been advanced in CC No.917 of 2017.

22. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.917 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the amount of 21,17,500/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses.

23. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy thereof. Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 Consumer Complaint No.919 of 2017:

24. In this case the complainant purchased the residential plot measuring 250 square yards at the rate of 6,000/- per square yard for a total sale consideration of 15,00,000/- and he paid 19,80,000/-, vide receipts/cheques Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8, Ex.C-10 & Ex.C-13, as per the details given in the complaint. Rest of the averments are same as made in CC No.917 of 2017. The complainant sought refund of the amount of 19,80,000/- along with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The stand taken by the opposite parties in their reply is similar as taken in C.C. No.917 of 2017. Also similar arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as have been advanced in CC No.917 of 2017.

25. In view of the findings recorded in CC No.917 of 2017, this complaint is also allowed in same terms and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

i) to refund the amount of 19,80,000/- to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses.

26. The opposite parties shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy thereof.

27. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free Consumer Complaint No.917 of 2017 certified copy of the order by hand and it is the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 23, 2018 Bansal