FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
1) Consumer Complaint No. 650 of 2017
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017 Order Reserved on : 13.02.2018 Date of Decision : 15.02.2018 Bharat Kumar Singh s/o Late Budhadev Singh r/o House No. 3304, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh ….Complainant
Versus
1. C&C Towers Ltd., Site Office, C&C Towers, ISBT cum Commercial Complex, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Gate No. 5, Phase 6, (Sector 57) Mohali through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Authorized representative.
2. C&C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No. 70, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Authorized representative.
3. G.S Johar, Chairman, C&C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot no. 70, Sector 32, Gurgaon Haryana.
…Opposite parties
Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).
1
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member. Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member. Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Kabir Sarin, Advocate …………………………………………………………………………………….
AND
2) Consumer Complaint No. 651 of 2017
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017 Order Reserved on : 13.02.2018 Date of Decision : 15.02.2018 Deepak Sood s/o Sh.S.K. Sood, r/o House No. 471, G.Z.S Nagar Ropar- 140001 (Pb). ….Complainant
Versus
1. C&C Towers Ltd., Site Office, C&C Towers, ISBT cum Commercial Complex, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Gate No. 5, Phase 6, (Sector 57) Mohali through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Authorized representative.
2. C&C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No. 70, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Chairman/Director/Managing Director/Manager/Authorized representative.
3. G.S Johar, Chairman, C&C Towers Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot no. 70, Sector 32, Gurgaon Haryana.
…Opposite parties
2
Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Kabir Sarin, Advocate ……………………………………………………………………………………
J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
By this common order, we intend to dispose of above referred two complaints, as common controversy is involved in both of them and they can be disposed of by means of this common order. The order shall be pronounced in main Complaint no. 650 of 2017 titled Bharat Kumar versus C&C Towers and others.
Consumer Complaint No. 650 of 2017
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OPs on the averments that to get office space for his own use and to earn the source of livelihood by means of self employment, the complainant approached OPs in this regard. The OPs made number of assurances about having all necessary permissions and approvals from the authorities along with the handing over of possession in time. On approaching OPs, they informed him that they are in possession of all the requisite permissions and approvals required for selling the units in their project and there was no condition barring them from receiving the consideration for sale of the plots in their project. The complainant was not in a business of sale and purchase of the properties. He bought the office space for his self-use and earning his source of livelihood by means of his self-employment. He bought another unit no. 45 super area 738 in Tower C First Floor, which was a retail space along with his brother to use the same for the purpose specified by OPs. He planned to use the office space for the official use of maintaining the record and work carried into the retail space. The nature of both the units were different as one was retail space and another was office space and both could not be used for same purpose, as such the purpose of purchasing the units were self use by him in order to earn the source of livelihood by means of self employment. The present complaint pertains to Unit no. 15, super area 715 sq. ft in Tower C Seventh Floor, which was an office space and could be used only for the purpose of office only. On the assurance given by OPs, he agreed to purchase the unit and he submitted an application form on 08.07.2010 to OPs. OPs received application/registration form along with booking amount of Rs.7,15,000/- from him. The OPs issued a demand notice dated 21.08.2010, wherein demand of Rs.5,36,250/- was raised. The complainant paid amount of Rs.5,36,250/- to OPs bearing cheque no. 265929 dated 13.09.2010, drawn on Central Bank of India Chandigarh. Thereafter, OPs issued an allotment letter dated 18.09.2010, wherein OPs agreed to complete the construction within a period of 30 months from the date of allotment, as per condition no. 1.3.5 and to hand over the possession thereof after completing commercial complex and after obtaining requisite
3
certification. The date of allotment was 18.09.2010 and the lease started on 15.12.2009 and construction had to be completed with a period of 30 months i.e. up to 14.06.2012, but OPs failed to disclose the reason for not completing the construction in time. The OPs sold the unit at the price of Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. The total price of the unit comes to Rs.47,25,000/- including charges of parking space, external electrification and fire fighting charges etc. The complainant agreed for construction linked payment plan, vide which 15% has to be paid at the time of application and 15% has to be paid at the time of allotment. He paid 35% of the amount in time, as per payment plan. OPs did not start the construction work, as per the construction schedule. He requested OPs for refund of the deposited amount due to non-completion of the construction work in time. OPs issued letter dated 0.7.05.2015 to one of the allottees, wherein it was informed that Bankers, GMADA and other stake holders have committed to extend their financial support and informed to restart the construction by July, 2015 and completion of project by mid 2017. This letter is breach of condition by OPs. One of the allottee approached GMADA and sought information under RTI Act and came to know that no license has been granted to OPs for this project, no agreement was executed by OPs with the government in this regard. He received a letter dated 13.07.2017 from OPs, wherein OPs mentioned about payment of interest @ 8.8% per annum from the date of receipt of 35% BSP to 31.08.2016. OPs remained silent about the status of the project as well as refund of the deposited amount by complainant. OPs received an amount of Rs.12,51,250/- from complainant and they did not reach the first floor slab by raising construction, from which, first installment was to be commenced as such OPs retained the hard earned money of the complainant without any basis. No requisite permissions and approvals were obtained by OPs on the date of receiving the registration amount from complainant. OPs clearly violated the provisions of PAPRA Act 1995, wherein they were required to comply with the mandatory provision, to be followed by them. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for refund of the entire deposited amount of Rs.12,51,250/- along with interest @ 18 p.a from the date of deposit till realization, further to pay Rs. 2 lac as compensation for mental harassment and to pay Rs. 1 lac as cost of litigation.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently, by raising preliminary objections that complainant has failed to disclose the material facts to this Forum and complainant is not consumer of OPs as well. On merits, it is averred that the complainant invested in two separate commercial units, which were neither connected interse nor have any connection to one another within their own family. It cannot be said that he sought such commercial premises for his own independent self-employment. The complainant is an investor, who has invested in two separate commercial units, which were neither connected nor have any correlation with each other. It is averred that the conditions precedent were not completed by the GMADA, consequently the period of construction was extended till 04.04.2011. Thereafter, the OPs have taken up the matter with GMADA for change in the compliance date, accordingly the period for completion of project would also be extended. The complainant was contractually bound to clear all installments in time to OPs. The complainant has opted for a construction linked payment plan, wherein he has cleared the installments in a staggered manner, linked to the various stages of construction. As per the allotment agreement entered into by the complainant, he has an option of surrender of this commercial space, subject to certain terms and conditions qua forfeiture. The complainant has been attempting to extract undue compensation from OPs, for which he is not entitled to under law. Any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs was denied and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sh. Yash Pal Dua AGM-Legal Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
Consumer Complaint No. 651 of 2017
4. The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OPs on the averments that to get office space for his own use and to earn his source of livelihood by means of his self employment, he approached OPs. The OPs made number of assurances
4
about having all requisite permissions and approvals along with the handing over of possession of the unit in time. On approaching OPs, they informed him that they are in possession of all the requisite permissions and approvals required for selling the units in their project and there was no condition barring them from receiving the consideration for sale of the plots in their project. He was not in a business of sale and purchase of the properties. He bought the office space for his self-use and earning his source of livelihood by means of his self-employment. He bought another unit, which was a retail space along with his brother to use the same for the purpose specified by OPs. He planned to use the office space for the official use of maintaining the record and to work himself in the retail shop. The nature of both the units were different as one was retail space and another was office space and both could not be used for same purpose, as such the purpose of purchasing the units were self use by him in order to earn his source of livelihood by means of his self employment. The present complaint pertains to Unit no. 36 super area 738 in Tower C Seventh Floor, which was an office space and could be used only for the purpose of office only. On the assurance given by OPs, he agreed to purchase the unit and he submitted an application form on 13.11.2010 with OPs. OPs received application/registration form along with booking amount of Rs.9,18,800/- . The OPs issued a demand notice dated 09.12.2010, wherein demand of Rs.12,76,670/- was raised. The complainant paid amount of Rs.8,76,670/- to OPs bearing cheque dated 04.01.2011 drawn on Central Bank of India Chandigarh. Thereafter, OPs issued an allotment letter dated 14.01.2011, wherein OPs agreed to complete the construction within a period of 30 months from the date of allotment, as per condition no. 1.3.5 and to hand over the possession after completing commercial complex and after obtaining requisite certification. The date of allotment was 14.01.2011 and the lease started on 15.12.2009 and construction had to be completed with a period of 30 months i.e. up to 14.06.2012, but OPs failed to disclose the reason for not completing the construction in time. The OPs sold the unit at the price of Rs.5000/- per sq. ft. The total price of the unit comes to Rs.63,01,250/- including charges of parking space, external electrification and fire fighting charges etc. The complainant agreed for construction linked payment plan as per which 15% has to be paid at the time of application and 20% has to be paid at the time of allotment. He paid 35% of the amount in time, as per payment plan. OPs did not start the construction work, as per the construction schedule. Legal notice was served upon OPs by GMADA due to non-completion of construction work at the site, but of no avail. He requested OPs for refund of the deposited amounts due to non-completion of the construction work in time. OPs issued letter dated 07.05.2015 to one of the allottees, wherein it was informed that Bankers, GMADA and other stake holders were committed to extend their financial support and informed to restart the construction by July, 2015 and completion of project by mid 2017. This letter is breach of condition by OPs. One of the allottee approached GMADA and sought information under RTI Act and came to know that no license has been granted to OPs, no agreement was entered by OPs with the government as required under law. He received a letter dated 24.12.2015 from OPs, wherein OPs mentioned about payment of interest @ 8.8% per annum from the date of receipt of 35% BSP to 31.08.2016. OPs remained silent about the status of the project as well as refund of the deposited amount by complainant. OPs received an amount of Rs.21,95,470/- from complainant and OPs did not reach the first floor slab from which, first installment was to be commenced as such OPs retained the hard earned money of the complainant without any basis. No requisite permissions and approvals were with OPs on the date of receiving the registration amount. OPs clearly violated the provisions of PAPRA Act, wherein they were required to comply with the mandatory provision, to be followed by them. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for refund of the entire deposited amounts of Rs.21,95,470/- along with interest @ 18 p.a from the date of deposits till realization, further to pay Rs. 2 lac as compensation for mental harassment and to pay Rs. 1 lac as cost of litigation.
5. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently by raising preliminary objections that complainant has failed to disclose the material facts to this Forum and complainant is not consumer of OPs. On merits, it is averred that the complainant invested in two separate commercial units, which were neither connected nor have any connection to one another within the family. The complainant has sought and allotted two commercial units i.e. Unit no. 36, third floor having super area of 738 sq. ft, which was subject matter of the present complaint and another commercial unit no. 7 Tower C, having a super area of 675 sq. ft. It cannot be said that he sought such commercial premises for his own independent self-employment. The complainant is an investor having invested in two separate commercial units, which were neither connected nor have any correlation
5
with each other. It is averred that the conditions precedent were not completed by the GMADA, consequently the period of construction was extended till 04.04.2011. Thereafter, the OPs have taken up the matter with GMADA for change in the compliance date and accordingly the period for completion of project would also be extended. The complainant was contractually bound to clear all installments in time. The complainant has opted for a construction linked payment plan, wherein he has cleared the installments in a staggered manner only linked to the various stages of construction. As per the allotment agreement entered into by the complainant, he has an option of surrender of this commercial space, subject to certain terms and conditions qua forfeiture thereof. The complainant has been attempting to extract undue compensation for which, he is not entitled to under law. Any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs was denied and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sh. Yash Pal Dua AGM-Legal Ex.OP-A along with copy of document Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The first point of controversy for determination in the above-referred complaints, is as to whether complainant is proved to be consumer of OPs or not. Housing construction is included in the definition of service under Section 2(o) of Consumer Protection ACT, 1986. The vehement point raised by counsel for OPs is that it is a commercial project, wherein complainant opted for office space and as such he cannot be consumer of OPs. On the other hand, the submission of counsel for complainant is that the complainant purchased the office space exclusively for earning his livelihood by means by means of self-employment. Section 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection ACT, 1986 defines "consumer" as under :-
Section 2(1)(d) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(d) "consumer" means any person who,—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii)12[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who12[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person13[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
The explanation appended with this Section makes it clear that for the purpose of this clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of exclusively earning his livelihood by means of self employment. This explanation, thus, clarifies this point that even if services are commercial and if the consumer obtained them exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, then he would be a consumer under the Act. It is clear that a person, who obtained such goods or services for resale is not consumer under Section 2(i)(d) of the Act. Testing on above touch stone of law, we proceed to decide this point as to whether complainants are proved to be consumer in the above referred complaints nor not. The complainant specifically pleaded in both complaints that office space was bought by them for earning the livelihood by means of self-employment over there. The submission of counsel for OPs is that mere
6
pleading to this effect is not sufficient and it must be substantiated by evidence on the record. In both complaint cases, complainants tendered their respective affidavits Ex.C-A on the record testifying that the office space was purchased by them exclusively for the purpose of earning the livelihood by means of self- employment. This fact is within the knowledge of the complainant, as to where, he wants to carry on his business and there cannot be put any fetter on his desire to set up the business. Law provides freedom to a person to carry on his business, unless it is prohibited by law. As against it, OPs tendered in rebuttal evidence affidavit of Yash Pal Dua AGM (Legal) Ex.OP-A to the contrary. He is authorized representative of OPs and cannot have personal knowledge over this matter regarding subjective decision of the complainant with regard to starting his business. Consequently, his affidavit is not sufficient to rebut the affidavit of the complainant on the record. On this point, counsel for OPs referred to host of authorities. He referred to law laid down by National Commission in Shweta Sharma versus M/s BPTP Ltd, reported in First Appeal No. 1648 of 2017 decided on 16.11.2017 by National Commission. In the cited authority, it has been mentioned in para no. 8 that there is no pleading to the effect that she booked a shop for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant was working as LIC agent in the insurance company from 2003 onwards. The facts of the case, thus, do not resemble with the facts of the instant complaint. Reference was then made to law laid down in "Dnyandeo Patiba Bhosale Khadki Khandala Ahmednagar Maharashtra versus Terex Equipments Pvt. Ltd and others", in Revision Petition no. 2122 of 2016 decided on 12.01.2017 by National Commission. This authority pertains to Terex machine purchased for huge amount of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The complainant was shown to be cultivating land and as such, it was held that he purchased it for commercial purposes, as it has got no connection with the agriculture. Reference was also made to law laid down by National Commission in "Mahesh Kumar versus M/s Shubhankar Marketing Pvt. Ltd" and others, reported in Revision Petition no. 709 of 2016 decided on 29.04.2016. In the cited authority, petitioner purchased a compressor against tax invoice dated 04.02.2013 of the price of Rs.16,25,000/-. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that he has not purchased it exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Reference was also made by counsel for OPs to law laid down by National Commission in "Manohar Damecha versus Lavasa Corporation Limited", in Consumer Complaint No. 1326 of 2015 decided on 01.02.2016. In the cited authority, there were 4-5 plot, which were purchased, which was held not catering to the needs of the complainant and complainant was not held consumer. OPs also referred to law laid down in "Major Vishwani Puri & Ors..versus DLF Universal Ltd", decided on 15.12.2014 by National Commission. The cited authority is distinguishable from factual matrix of the case, because in the cited authority, 19 complainants were unnatural persons and it was held that they have not purchased the project for earning livelihood by means of self-employment and hence were not consumers. A juristic person is generally not a consumer like a natural person. OPs also referred to law laid down by National Commission in Lokman Ahmed Bux "M/s Utkal Nirman versus Citicorp Finance Ltd and Ors", reported in Revision Petition no. 3638 of 2009 decided on 22.05.2015, this authority relates to purchase of vehicle by loan. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose for running the business of said concern and hence concern was not held to be consumer. The counsel for OPs referred to law laid down by Apex Court in "M/s Cheema Engineering Services versus Rajan Singh", decided on 01.11.1996 that goods were purchased for self- employment for earning livelihood exclusively. The cited authority arose out of facts of manufacture and sale of bricks in a commercial way. Merely stating that they did it for earning livelihood in commercial business, does not mean that it is not for commercial purpose. The cited authorities by counsel for OPs, thus do not fit into the factual matrix of this case.
8. On the other hand, Coordinate Bench of this Commission has elaborated this point in "Indu Laroia and another versus C and C Towers Limited", in Consumer Complaint no. 314 of 2017 decided on 07.11.2017. It was held in the similar circumstances that complainants, who purchased the office space on construction linked payment plan was a consumer. A reference be also made to law laid down by
Coordinate Bench of this Commission in "Sharanjeet Kaur versus C & C Towers Ltd and another", in Consumer Complaint no. 343 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2017. This authority has also been affirmed by the Apex Court. View of this Bench has been affirmed by National Commission in "C&C Towers Limited and another versus Raman Kumar", reported in "First Appeal no. 1439 of 2017 decided on 04.08.2017.
We find that complainant submitted declaration form with OPs to the effect that he will not manipulate the office space for purpose of price. This declaration form furnishes this assurance that he purchased the office
7
space for the purpose of earning his livelihood exclusively by means of self-employment. The mere purchase of retail shop by complainant/Bharat Kumar Singh would not detract him from the definition of the consumer, because he purchased it to carry on his business and office space would be used by him to facilitate him in that regard as its subsidiary. Consequently, in the above complaints, the complainant are held to be consumers by us.
9. Evidence on the record has been appraised by us with the able assistance of counsel for the parties. The evidence on the record in Complaint No. 650 of 2017 is referred to because both complaints give rise to the same controversy. Brochure published by OPs for sale of the office space is Ex.C-1. Application for allotment of commercial space sub lease is Ex.C-2 by complainant. The complainant opted for construction linked payment plan by means of installments. The complainant paid amount of Rs.5,36,250/- on 13.09.2010 to OPs. Ex.C-4 is demand notice sent by OPs to complainant on 21.08.2010. Letter of allotment was issued to complainant by OPs on 18.09.2010, vide Ex.C-6. As per clause, 1.3.5 of allotment letter, the construction of the said unit was likely to be completed in 30 months from the date of start of lease period, after all necessary approvals and sanctions have been obtained, subject to force majeure circumstances beyond the control of OPs. The drift of this clause makes it clear that OPs were to hand over the possession of the completed construction within 30 days from the date of start of lease. Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 are newspaper reports regarding lagging behind the construction from the scheduled time by OPs. Ex.C-10 is the letter issued by OPs to Sharanjeet Kaur on 07.05.2015 to the effect that they would restart the construction by July, 2015 and project would be completed by mid of the year 2017. Sharanjeet Kaur obtained information under RTI Act from the OPs about this project, vide Ex.C-12, it was supplied by the concerned official of Superintendent Engineering GMADA that on 15.09.2016 that no license of construction was granted to CC Tower Ltd, no agreement was entered into by CC Towers Ltd with the Government. This document Ex.C-12 has thus, established this fact on the record that OPs did not hold the license of construction of this project till 15.09.2016. No agreement was executed by OPs with Government uptil 15.09.2016. This information obtained under RTI Act by Sharanjeet Kaur goes a long way in proving this fact that OPs were not holding any license, any agreement with the concerned government on 15.09.2011. Ex.C-14 also shows that OPs have not completed the construction till 2016. Letter Ex.C-15 is addressed to Sharanjit Kaur by OPs. It has intimated that construction would restart w.e.f February 2016. The complainant Bharat Kumar Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A on the record to substantiate it his allegations.
10. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OP-1 the application for allotment of commercial space sub-lease, The commercial space allotted in this complaint no. 650 of 2017 to Bharat Kumar Singh unit no. 15 super area 715 sq. ft in Tower C Seventh floor. OPs relied upon affidavit of Yash Paul Dua AGM-Legal/Admin. He has not specifically contradicted the allegations of the complainant with regard to progress and non-start of the construction project in dispute. Bharat Kumar complainant also tendered his supplementary affidavit on the record in support of his averments.
11. Similar, evidence has been placed on the record by the complainant Deepak Sood in Consumer Complaint no. 651 of 2017. The information obtained under RTI Act by Sharanjeet Kaur about this project, vide Ex.C-12, it was supplied that OPs have no license for construction till 15.09.2016, nor agreement was executed with the government by OPs in the above project uptil above date. OPs also wrote letters to Sharanjeet Kaur, vide Ex.C-10 in CC No. 651 of 2017 informing that the construction would be restarted by July, 2015. OPs wrote letter to Deepak Sood, vide Ex.C-15 for relocation space in Tower A. OPs relocated the space without consent of the complainant. Similarly, affidavit of Deepak Sood complainant Ex.C-A on the record. Counter affidavit filed by Yash Paul Dua Ex.OP-A on the record but it is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the complainant.
12. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to this conclusion that as per allotment letter Ex.C-6, OPs were to deliver the possession of the site to complainant within 30 days from the date of start of lease under Clause 1.3.5 of allotment letter Ex.C-6 dated 14.01.2011. Even year 2018 has started running and there are no approvals and sanctions with OPs nor they have been shown to us. No completion certificate has been shown to us by OPs in this case, as contemplated by Section 14 of
8
PAPRA Act 1995. OPs did not hold license for development of this project. No agreement was executed by OPs with the government uptil 15.09.2016, vide letter Ex.C-12 on the record, which was required. OPs violated Sections 3, 6, 9, 12 and 14 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995 in this regard by not developing the project, despite receipt of the money from the allottees. OPs are not expected to sit over the hard earned money of complainant for an indefinite period. The consumers cannot be left with any
9