Mangal Singh Kondal v. The M.D., Bajwa Developers Ltd.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

1) Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 Date of institution : 21.08.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018 Mangal Singh Kondal Son of Late Sh. Gurdev Singh, Permanent Resident of VPO Kathiari, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. .Complainant Versus

1. The Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO No.17- 18, Sunny Enclave Desu Majra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Opposite Parties

2) Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2017 Date of institution : 08.09.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018 Sunil Kumar Malhotra Son of Late Sh. Chuni Lal Malhotra, R/o House No.4319, Shivaji Nagar, C/o Kapil Katyal, Ludhiana (Punjab). .Complainant Versus

1. M/s Bajwa Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, J.S. Bajwa, Regd. Office Sunny Business Centre, 5th Floor, New Sunny Enclave, Greater Mohali (Punjab).

2. Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa S/o Sh. Bishan Singh, M.D. of M/s Bajwa Developers Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office Sunny Business Centre, 5th Floor, New Sunny Enclave, Greater Mohali (Punjab). .Opposite Parties

3) Consumer Complaint No.835 of 2017 Date of institution : 22.09.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018 Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 Mr. Amarjit Singh Multani son of Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Resident of House No.2544, Sector 70, Mohali (Pb.). .Complainant Versus M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, through its Managing Director, Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Office at Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. .Opposite Party

4) Consumer Complaint No.855 of 2017 Date of institution : 29.09.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018 Manoj Kumra son of Sh. B.D. Kumra, aged 47 years, Resident of 3267, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. .Complainant Versus

1. The Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO No.17- 18, Sunny Enclave Majra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, presently having the office at Sunny Business Centre, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125 near KFC, 5th Floor, Kharar, Desu Majra.

2. The Manager (Sales), Bajwa Developers Limited, SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desu Majra, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Opposite Parties

5) Consumer Complaint No.916 of 2017 Date of institution : 23.10.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018 Smt. Kalpana, aged 44 years, W/o Sh. Deep Kumar Dhiman, R/o Village Jhikali Barol, PO Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, HP. .Complainant Versus

1. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd. Office SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab- 140301, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

2. Sh. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd. Office SCO No.17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, Distt. Mohali, Punjab-140301, through its Authorized Signatory. 2nd Address: SCO No.6-7, 2nd Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. .Opposite Parties

6) Consumer Complaint No.922 of 2017 Date of institution : 24.10.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018

1. Sangita Dang wife of Sh. Rakesh Dang;

2. Rakesh Dang S/o Sh. Chaman Lal Dang; Both Resident of House No.204, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh. .Complainants Versus

1. Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd., SCO 210-211, Ground Floor, above Gopal Sweets, Sunny Business Centre, Mohali, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

2. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Chairman/Director/Managing Director/ Authorized Representative of Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd. SCO 210-211, Ground Floor, above Gopal Sweets, Sunny Business Centre, Mohali. .Opposite Parties

7) Consumer Complaint No.923 of 2017 Date of institution : 24.10.2017 Date of decision : 08.02.2018

1. Nikunj Mangal wife of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Mangal;

2. Sanjay Kumar Mangal S/o Sh. M.L. Gupta; Both residents of House No.657, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh. .Complainants Versus

1. Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd., SCO 210-211, Ground Floor, above Gopal Sweets, Sunny Business Centre, Mohali, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

2. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, Chairman/Director/Managing Director/ Authorized Representative of Bajwa Developers Limited, Regd. SCO 210-211, Ground Floor, above Gopal Sweets, Sunny Business Centre, Mohali. .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member. Present (Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017):- For the complainant : None For the opposite parties: Sh. Sudesh Sahi, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT : This order will dispose of above mentioned seven (7) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), as the facts and the questions of law involved in all these complaints are the same and all the complaints have been filed against the same opposite party/parties by the complainants. There is somewhat variation in the pleadings of the complaints/replies, but the fact remains that all the matters pertain to allotment of plots/flats by the opposite party/parties. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017. Facts of Complaint The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay 19,00,000/-, as compensation and Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 24,00,000/- towards the cost of the flat, totaling 43,00,000/-, in the following manner:

i) to pay 9,20,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which comes to 6,90,000/- till the filing of the complaint; totaling 16,10,000/-; ii) to pay 2,50,000/-, as compensation for defrauding the complainant and for causing mental agony and harassment to him; iii) to pay punitive damages to the tune of 4,000/- Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant, for his personal necessity, booked a flat (2 BHK) bearing BR No.2390, for 24,00,000/- with the opposite parties, regarding which an agreement between the parties was executed on 21.04.2011. The complainant adopted Construction Linked Plan. According to payment schedule given in the agreement, the date of final payment was 14.07.2013 i.e. the date of delivery of possession. Accordingly, the complainant paid the first instalment of 4,00,000/- on 21.04.2011 and further paid 2,00,000/- on 13.05.2011; 3,00,000/- on 10.03.2013; and 20,000/- on 14.05.2013. Thus, he paid a sum of 9,20,000/- to the opposite parties on different dates towards the price of the said flat. It was averred that the opposite parties were not having any permission from GMADA for setting up residential colony in Sectors 117 and 74-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali, under the name of Sunny Basant. They got permission from GMADA only on 19.05.2014, subject to getting the approval from other statutory bodies. They were also not having other Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 permissions from Fire Safety Department, Sanitary Department, Electricity Department and Water Works Department. Thus, acceptance of various amounts from various allottees, without having requisite permission regarding setting up the said project, shows the malice intention of the opposite parties. They posed to the complainant that possession of the flat would be delivered to him on 14.07.2013, but the same was not delivered by that period. It was further averred that the opposite parties sold the flat, in question, to the complainant, which was earmarked for EWS category, whereas they received the money from him under general category. The opposite parties miserably failed to start the project till date of filing of the complaint, whereas they could not sell the flat/project to anyone, until and unless CLU was granted, which was granted much later on 19.05.2014. It was further averred that earlier the complainant filed complaint (CC No.366/2016) before District Forum, Mohali; which was returned, vide order dated 12.06.2017, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint (Consumer Complaint No.595 of 2017) before this Commission, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 08.08.2017, with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. Hence, the present complaint. Defence of the Opposite Parties

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply, taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is time barred, as the agreement was entered into on 14.05.2013 and last payment of 3,00,000/- was made by the complainant on 10.03.2013, Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 whereas the present complaint was filed beyond the limitation period on 21.08.2017 (date wrongly mentioned in the written reply as 18.08.2017). The complainant is not a consumer under the Act, as the flats were meant for economically weaker section (EWS) of the society and the complainant has concealed his identity of being effluent member of the society and kept the opposite parties in dark about his status. Thus, he obtained the consent of the opposite parties fraudulently, while entering into the said agreement on 14.05.2013. He did not furnish any documents in support of his claim that he belongs to EWS category. The construction and possession of the flat was limited to payment plan, as per which final payment was to be made on 14.07.2013. However, the complainant paid only 9,20,000/- and thereafter failed to deposit further instalments, as per the payment schedule. As per Clause 3 of the agreement, if any instalment was not paid within 15 days from the stipulated date, the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. On merits, allotment of the flat, in question, and deposit of the amount, as mentioned in the complaint, were admitted. Similar other pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated. Other allegations of the complainant were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed, being void ab-initio. Evidence of the Parties

3. To prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.

4. The opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A, along with letter Ex.OP-1. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 Contentions of the Parties

5. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant at the time of arguments. We have also gone through the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the complaint is time barred, as the agreement was entered into between the parties on 14.05.2013 and last payment of 3,00,000/- was made by the complainant on 10.03.2013, whereas the present complaint was filed beyond the limitation period on 18.08.2017. It was further contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act, as the flats were meant for economically weaker section (EWS) of the society and the complainant has concealed his identity, being effluent member of the society and kept the opposite parties in dark about his status. It was further contended that as per Clause 3 of the agreement, if any instalment was not paid within 15 days from the stipulated date, the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. The complainant has deposited only 9,20,000/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the flat, in question, and has failed to make payment of further instalments. Thus, the amount deposited by him is liable to be forfeited. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as the stand of the complainant as given in the complaint. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

8. Admittedly the agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between the parties on 14.05.2013, vide which the flat, in question, was allotted to the complainant. Towards the price of the flat, in question, he deposited a sum of 9,20,000/-, as per the agreement and Annexure A-1. This fact has also been admitted by the opposite parties in the reply. However, the opposite parties failed to complete/develop the flat, in question, so as to deliver its possession to the complainant within a reasonable period.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that the flat, in question, was sold to the complainant, vide agreement dated 14.05.2013, whereas the permission to set up residential colony was given by GMADA to the opposite parties, vide letter dated 19.05.2014, Ex.C-2, and that too subject to getting approval from other statutory bodies. The fact remains that the opposite parties agreed to sell the flat and received huge amount of 9,20,000/- from the complainant, without having any permission to setting up the residential colony from the competent authorities in the year 2013. The opposite parties have not stated anything in their reply about the completion of the project and delivery of possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant. Until and unless the possession of the flat, in question, is not delivered, there is continuous cause of action in favour of the complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint is time barred. There is also no evidence on their side to show that they have complied with the terms and conditions of above said letter, Ex.C-2. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

10. Main defence of the opposite parties in the reply is that the complainant fraudulently purchased the flat, in question, under EWS category, but failed to furnish any documents to prove that he belongs to EWS category. The opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP-A and copy of an undated and incomplete letter, Ex.OP-1 regarding sale of EWS apartment/plot. Customer name and BR No. are left blank therein. Thus, we find that no letter was ever sent to the complainant asking him to furnish the aforesaid documents. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the pleadings of the opposite parties in their reply cannot be said to be proved. Thus, this document is of no help for the opposite parties. There is no other evidence to show that the opposite parties have obtained all the requisite licences/approvals/permissions from the competent authorities for setting up the said project.

11. All the above facts and circumstances clearly prove that the opposite parties have not complied with the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA). As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days; notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

12. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony, but they failed to produce on record any such permission, as they were proceeded against ex parte. So, they also violated section 5 of papra.

13. As per section 9 of 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/flats, 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. There is no evidence or pleading on record on behalf of the opposite parties in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

14. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of the PAPRA, it has been provided as under:-

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.

15. The opposite parties had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 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 it insists upon the performance of the promise by the consumers, it is to be bound by the reciprocal promises of performing their part of the agreement. The opposite parties have failed to comply the aforementioned provisions of PAPRA, while launching and promising to develop their project. Thus, the delay in not completing the flat within the agreed period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

16. The Consumer Protection 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 flat 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 flat and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. 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 builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat within a Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 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 Rules and would not be able to complete the flat and to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation 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 building the flat, 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 these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest and suitable compensation. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

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

i) to refund 9,20,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2017

18. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.789 of 2017 (Sunil Kumar Malhotra v. M/s Bajwa Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), the complainant purchased 2 BHK BR No.(822):2422, measuring 900 sq.ft. from the opposite parties for 24,00,300/-, rounded to 24,00,000/-, qua which agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between the parties on 27.05.2011.The complainant paid a sum of 9,60,000/- to the opposite parties towards the price of the said flat, as evident from second page of the agreement, Ex.C-1, and receipt Ex.C-2. The opposite parties failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within a reasonable period. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite parties:

i) to refund principal amount of 9,60,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 18.04.2011 till realization thereof; ii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him; and iii) to pay 50,000/-, as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

19. The opposite parties filed written reply, on the similar lines of their written reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017.

20. In order to prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

21. The opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A, along with letter Ex.OP-1.

22. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this is complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund 9,60,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.835 of 2017

23. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.835 of 2017 (Amarjit Singh Multani v. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited), the complainant, after his retirement, with a view to start a business by way of self- employment, purchased booth No.123, situated in Sector 123, Village Jandpur, Mohali, measuring 33.33 sq. yds. for 25,00,17/-, rounded to 25,00,000/-, from the opposite party, qua which agreement, Ex.C-3, was executed between the parties on 08.09.2011.The complainant paid a sum of 6,25,000/- to the opposite party towards the price of the said flat, as evident from second page of the agreement, Ex.C-3. The opposite party failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 possession of the booth, in question, to the complainant within a reasonable period. The complainant earlier filed complaint (CC No.210 of 2016) in District Forum, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, which was ordered to be returned to the complainant, vide order dated 16.05.2017, annexed with document Ex.C-7, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction with liberty to approach appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission. Hence, by way of this complaint, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite party:

i) to refund principal amount of 6,25,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; ii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him; and iii) to pay 55,000/-, as litigation expenses.

24. The opposite party filed written reply, pleading that the booth, in question, was booked by the complainant for commercial purpose and, thus, he is not a consumer, under the Act. Deposit of 6,25,000/- was admitted, but it was pleaded that the complainant committed default in making payment of rest of the amount and, thus, the above said deposited amount is liable to be forfeited. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.

25. In order to prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.

26. The opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

27. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this is complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite party:

i) to refund 6,25,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.855 of 2017

28. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.855 of 2017 (Manoj Kumra v. The Manager, Bajwa Developers Limited & Anr.), the complainant purchased 2 BHK BR No.2552, measuring 900 sq.ft. from the opposite parties for 24,00,000/-, qua which agreement, Ex.C-1, was executed between the parties on 26.08.2011.The complainant paid the initial amount of 6,00,000/- to the opposite parties towards the price of the said flat, as evident from second page of the agreement, Ex.C-1. The opposite parties failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within a reasonable period. Hence, the complainant sought directions to the opposite parties to pay 19,00,000/-, as compensation and 24,00,000/- towards the cost of the flat, in the following manner:

i) to refund of 6,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum which comes to 6,93,000/- till the filing of the complaint; totaling 13,00,000/-(approx.); Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 ii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation for defrauding the complainant and for causing mental agony and harassment to him; iii) to pay punitive damages to the tune of 1,00,000/-

29. The opposite parties filed written reply, on the similar lines of their written reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017.

30. In order to prove his claim, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.

31. The opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A, along with letter Ex.OP-1.

32. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this is complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund 6,00,000/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.916 of 2017

33. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.916 of 2017 (Smt. Kalpana v. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited & Anr.), the complainant purchased flat No.302, 3rd Floor (Heaven Tower), measuring 1270 sq.ft. (approx.) from the opposite parties in their project named as E-

27 at Sunny Urban Greens, now known as Sunny Parkways, for a total sum of 33,25,000/-, as per agreement dated 14.01.2013, Ex.C-2. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 As per Clause 10 of that agreement, the possession of the dwelling unit was to be given after two years from the date of Sale Agreement. The complainant deposited a sum of 8,31,250/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the said flat. However, the opposite parties failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver possession of the flat, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence, the complainant sought following directions to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the amount of 8,31,250/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 14.01.2013 i.e. the date of execution of the agreement till final adjudication of the complaint; ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and iii) to pay 55,000/-, as litigation expenses.

34. The opposite parties filed their reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.855 of 2017 and Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017. They duly admitted in Para No.3 of preliminary objections in their reply that the complainant deposited a sum of 8,31,250/- with them towards the price of the flat, in question.

35. The complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit as Ex.C-A, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12.

36. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A and letter Ex.OP-1. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

37. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund 8,31,250/-, to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.922 of 2017

38. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.922 of 2017 (Sangita Dang & Anr. v. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited & Anr.), the complainants purchased plot No.157A, measuring 223.33 sq.yds., situated in Sector 123, Jandpur from the opposite parties for a total sum of 40,64,606/-, as per agreement dated 30.07.2011, Ex.C-1. The complainants deposited a sum of 23,32,151/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the said plot, as is evident from second page of the agreement, Ex.C-1. The opposite parties even changed location of the plot to new plot No.2650, measuring 200 sq.yds. on 19.06.2012. However, the opposite parties failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants within the stipulated period. The opposite parties even sent cancellation notice dated 24.07.2017, Ex.C-2, on the ground of non-payment of instalments regularly, which was duly replied by the complainant, vide letters/email Ex.C-3, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6, stating that since the opposite parties themselves failed to complete/develop the project and also failed to obtain necessary Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 permissions/approvals/sanctions from the competent authorities for launching their project, therefore, there was no default in making payments on the part of the complainants. The complainants sought refund of the deposited amount from the opposite parties, in such circumstances. Hence, the complainants sought following directions to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the amount of 23,32,151/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and iii) to pay 1,00,000/-, as litigation expenses.

39. The opposite parties filed their reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaints No.855 of 2017 and Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017. They did not deny that the complainants deposited a sum of 23,32,151/- with them towards the price of the plot, in question. However, they pleaded that as the complainants committed default in making payment of instalments regularly, therefore, a sum of 10,16,000/- was to be forfeited out of the deposited amount.

40. The complainants tendered in evidence their affidavits as Ex.C-A and Ex.CB, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.

41. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A and letter Ex.OP-1. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

42. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund 23,32,151/-, to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.923 of 2017

43. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.922 of 2017 (Nikunj Mangal & Anr. v. M/s Bajwa Developers Limited & Anr.), the complainants purchased plot No.156A, measuring 223.33 sq.yds., situated in Sector 123, Jandpur from the opposite parties for a total sum of 40,64,606/-, as per agreement dated 13.07.2011, Ex.C-1. The complainants deposited a sum of 23,32,000/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the said plot, as is evident from second page of the agreement, Ex.C-1. The opposite parties even changed location of the plot to new plot No.2641, measuring 200 sq.yds. on 19.06.2012. However, the opposite parties failed to complete/develop the project, so as to deliver possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants within the stipulated period. The opposite parties even sent cancellation notice dated 24.07.2017, Ex.C-2, on the ground of non-payment of instalments regularly, which was duly replied by the complainant, vide letters/emails Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6, stating that since the opposite parties themselves failed to complete/develop the project and also failed to obtain necessary permissions/approvals/ sanctions from Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017 the competent authorities for launching their project, therefore, there was no default in making payments on the part of the complainants. The complainants sought refund of the deposited amount from the opposite parties, in such circumstances. Hence, the complainants sought following directions to the opposite parties:

i) to refund the amount of 23,32,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; ii) to pay 2,00,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants; and iii) to pay 1,00,000/-, as litigation expenses.

44. The opposite parties filed their reply, on the similar lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaints No.855 of 2017 and Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017. They did not deny that the complainants deposited a sum of 23,32,000/- with them towards the price of the plot, in question. However, they pleaded that as the complainants committed default in making payment of instalments regularly, therefore, a sum of 10,16,000/- was to be forfeited out of the deposited amount.

45. The complainants tendered in evidence their affidavits as Ex.C-A and Ex.CB, along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.

46. The opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director, as Ex.OP/A. Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017

47. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2017, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to refund 23,32,000/-, to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA; and ii) to pay 50,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them as well as litigation expenses.

48. Compliance of the orders passed in all the complaints shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.

49. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

50. Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Commission, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it would be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER February 08, 2018. (Gurmeet S)