STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. Misc. Application No.241 of 2019 In/and Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 Date of institution : 08.02.2019 Reserved on : 20.05.2019 Date of decision : 03.06.2019

1. Dr. Mudit Kumar son of Shri Surendra Sahai Srivastava,

2. Dr. Monika Sachdeva wife of Dr. Mudit Kumar, Both residents of H.No.1104, LYRA Block, Taj Towers, Sector 104, SAS Nagar, Mohali. .Complainants Versus

1. M/s Universal Infrastructures having its registered office at SCO-44, Sector 104, Pearl City, Mohali, through its Managing Director/Authorized Officer. e-mail: uniinfra11@gmail.com

2. Mandeep Singla, Partner, M/s Universal Infrastructures having its site office-SCO 44, Sector-104, Pearl City, Mohali e-mail: sales@tajtowers.com

3. Rajesh Kumar, Partner, M/s Universal Infrastructures having its site office-SCO 44, Sector-104, Pearl City, Mohali. e-mail: sales@tajtowers.com

4. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali, through its Chief Administrator. e-mail: eo@gmada.gov.in ..Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 Consumer Complaint 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 complainants : Shri Sandeep Khunger, Advocate. For opposite parties Nos.1-3: Shri Manoj Vashishtha, Advocate. For opposite party No.4 : Shri Anuj Kohli, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: M.A. No.241 of 2019: This is an application for permission to file a joint complaint. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Main Complaint:

2. The complainants, Dr. Mudit Kumar and Dr. Monika Sachdeva, husband and wife, have filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act) for the issuance of following directions to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3:-

i) to provide Completion Certificate from the competent authority (opposite party No.4) within time bound manner and to pay interest @ 10% per annum on the total sale consideration from the date of payment till they get the Completion Certificate; ii) to provide registered maintenance society to the complainants and till then opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 be directed not to charge any maintenance charges from them; iii) to provide the promised facilities and amenities as per the brochure; Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 iv) to provide Occupation Certificate of the flat in question because in the absence of the Occupation Certificate/Completion Certificate it is only a paper possession which has been handed over to them;

v) to pay the consolidated amount of 2 lakh, as compensation, for mental and physical harassment to the complainants; and vi) to pay 55,000/- towards litigation costs. Facts of the Complaint:

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainants are Doctors and are joint allottees of Flat No.1104, Block Lyra, Category 4-BHK, location-4th, Floor 11th in the Taj Towers, Sector 104, Pearl City, Mohali, for a total sale consideration of 70,00,000/- including External Development Charges, infrastructural development charges etc. The complainants are aggrieved against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, who failed to provide promised facilities and services as per the terms and conditions of the contract i.e. allotment letter and the Buyers Agreement executed between the parties in respect of the said flat. The case of the complainants is that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 have failed to provide the amenities and handed over the possession of the said flat without Completion Certificate from the competent authority. The possession has been illegally offered to the complainants on 10.7.2016. In-spite of the fact that the entire amount towards the sale consideration has been paid by the complainants they have been deprived of the promised facilities. In fact the complainants were Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 attracted by the brochure and the advertisements made by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 that they are renowned in construction work and have constructed buildings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University, Fatehgarh Sahib, Thapar University, Derabassi, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala, PRTC Training Institute, Civil Hospitals as well as several housing complex. They had come up with Taj Towers-Heart of Mohali with all the latest facilities as per the global standard wherein the complainants have been allotted the flat. It was projected in their brochure as under:- The Taj Tower is built on the most prominent location of Sector 104, Pearl City, Mohali, comprises 4 BHK luxurious Apartments, which embraces extravagant luxury to let you live life on your terms. When you live in the Taj Towers, you dont own a home, you own a kingdom. Here you own an elite space that is meticulously built for you by the finest architects, using the finest material, where luxury is a necessity. The Taj Towers is the only privileged choice for people who love to live life-king size. Following facilities were promised in the brochure of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3:- Creche & Child Care Facility, Entertainment Zone for all age groups, Elderly Care Centre and Nurse Assistance; Mini Cineplex, 24 Hours Chemist Shop, Dietician prescribed Catering, Club House, Restro-Bar, Guest Rooms at Club Taj; Fully equipped Fitness Centre, Shopping Area within proximity, Jogging Track, Swimming Pool; Non-Stop Power & Water Supply, Wi-fi Zone, 3-Tier Security, Spacious Balconies & Turfed Garden. A rosy picture was shown in the brochure and the advertisement. The complainants were attracted by the same and accordingly Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 booked 4 Bedrooms House but when the possession was given many things were lacking. It is further pleaded in the complaint that they have taken Preferential located flat by paying the extra amount as PLC charges and extra car parking charges i.e. ECP, vide Buyers Agreement dated 5.6.2016, Ex.C-3. The possession was delivered on 10.7.2016 without the Occupation and Completion Certificate from the competent authorities. The complainants had paid 100% of total sale consideration from their own resources and a home loan of 58,80,000/- was got financed from the State Bank of India on 12.7.2016 so that the sale consideration of 77,01,074/- be made to them, which was accordingly made. It needs to be emphasized that the Completion and Occupation Certificate is a necessity without which no one can reside in a house. In the recent past in AQUILA TOWER a life-threatening incident had happened on 14.6.2017 where fire broke out which could not be controlled due to lack of the fire safety norms and other facilities. The photographs of the said incident in the AQUILA TOWER have been annexed on record as Ex.C-10. Such like fire could have been avoided if the proper amenities would have been provided. At least minimum life risk would have been there. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 have taken the advantage of the complainants as they were in immediate need of the flat and the complainants were made to shift to the flat without there being promised facilities with the understanding that the same would be provided within a short span of time. However, it was realized that after getting the total sale consideration from the complainants, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are not ready to spend any Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 amount on the development of the promised facilities. Very often water stagnation in the pits of the lifts can be seen and the same is causing endanger to the life of the residents. Also there is water logging and stagnation of water in the pits meant for the electric supply, which is clear pointer to the fact that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are not at all bothered about the safety of the residents and are concerned only in minting money in one way or the other. The photographs in that regard have been annexed on record as Ex.C-

12. It is further averred that initially the project was got sanctioned from the competent authority by showing the basement as parking; however, subsequently in collusion with the official of GMADA opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 got the project sanctioned without basement parking and as such, there is not enough parking for the residents and further the promised facilities in the club have also not been provided. Neither there is any Restro-Bar in the said Club and even the other facilities like Chemist Shop, Creche and Child Care Facility, Elderly Care Centre & Nurse Assistance, Guest Room, 24 hours Doctor on call are not in existence in the project. In the name of Club, there is only one Hall which is being used as an Administrative Office and the employees of opposite parties Nos.1 to

3 are operating from the said Hall. It is further averred that even after the repeated requests opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 failed to provide completion certificate, which the complainants have been asking for since the day of possession. The complainants vide letter dated 21.10.2018 requested opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 to get the completion certificate and issue occupancy certificate along with Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 separate maintenance agreement for the flat at the earliest. Information under the RTI Act, 2005 was received from opposite party No.4-GMADA with regard to the completion certificate. Specific information was sought with regard to the date of approval of the sanctioned layout plan, revised layout plan and the report of inspection for issuance of partial completion certificate for group housing project; named, the Taj Towers. Opposite party No.2 informed that they have not obtained the Completion Certificate because there were deficiencies in the project. The details have been mentioned in letter dated 7.9.2016, Ex.C-17. By offering the possession of the flat to the complainants by misrepresenting that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are having the partial completion certificate and they will be getting the completion and occupancy certificate in near future but in actual not even having the partial completion certificate amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint for issuance of above mentioned directions to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. Defence of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3:

3. Upon notice opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is based on misrepresentation as the complainants have concealed the material facts from this Commission. The complaint is barred by limitation. The possession of the residential unit in question was taken way back in the month of September 2016 and now in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand the Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties do not lie in the mouth of the complainants. Since the complainants were also having a residential plot within the vicinity as admitted by them in the present complaint, thus, their sole purpose to purchase the flat in the said project was only to fetch profit out of the registration rights of the flat in question. Thus, it was merely an investment and the complainants have no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The opposite parties were rigorously pursuing the development work of their project. The possession in the project was to be offered in a phased manner. The first phase of the project of the opposite parties was ready for possession in the month of January 2016 and accordingly the opposite parties approached the competent authority and applied for the partial completion of the project, vide application dated 25.1.2016. Thereafter the competent authority formed an Inspection Committee to assess the completion of the respective part of the project. The said Inspection Committee after due inspection of the project recommended for issuance of the partial completion certificate. Since the Inspection Committee of the competent authority already recommended the issuance of the partial completion certificate, therefore, only after the compliance of the obligation casted upon them under the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) offered the possession to the respective allottees, who after getting themselves satisfied, took over the possession of their respective residential units as all the amenities/facilities were duly available in the project. On the request Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 of the allottees of the project the possession of the residential units was handed over to its allottees after the possession formalities were completed till the months of May, June & July 2016 and accordingly the said families shifted to their respective residential units. Moreover, within a month of allotment of the residential flat on 4.6.2016 the opposite parties offered the possession of the flat, vide letter dated 10.7.2016. After getting the allotment of the flat in question till taking of the possession thereof on 22.9.2016 the complainants kept on visiting the flat in question and only after satisfying themselves about the construction of the flat, availability and quality of services and facilities/amenities in the project of the opposite parties, they took the possession of the same. Thereafter the complainants started residing in the said flat and after residing in the said flat for more than about 14 months, in the month of December 2017 they got the sale deed executed in their favour. Till the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the complainants not even a single complaint has been raised pertaining to non- availability of the services. The project of the opposite parties was complete in all respects in the month of September 2017 and accordingly the opposite parties applied to the competent authority for the issuance of Completion Certificate, vide application dated 12.10.2017. Inspection Committee was again formed and the said Committee after due inspection of the project of the opposite parties recorded its finding head-wise recommending issuance of completion certificate to whole of the project, vide report dated 17.1.2018. Thus, the liability fastened upon the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 under the provisions of the PAPRA to complete the project and within reasonable time period apply for the issuance of completion certificate, has been duly complied with. Moreover, the Inspection Committee has submitted its positive report about the project, which leaves no doubt that the project, is complete in all respects and only thing to be done is issuance of the completion certificate and that too on the part of the competent authority. Complainant No.1 himself is a member of the Residents Welfare Association and since 2017 the RWA is maintaining a separate account for the maintenance work and the amount so collected from the residents with regard to the maintenance charges is directly remitted in the said account. The RWA is effectively working in the project of the opposite parties and the maintenance work is also in direct governance of the RWA. Thus, the issue of providing registered maintenance society is again beyond the scope of the opposite parties. On merits, the purchase of the flat in question and the delivery of possession thereof in the manner stated in the complaint have been admitted. The averments made in the preliminary objections of the written statement have been reiterated. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. Defence of Opposite Party No.4:

4. In its reply opposite party No.4 took preliminary objections to the effect that quintessentially it is an inter-se dispute between the complainants and opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, in which opposite Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 party No.4 has no role to play and it has been unnecessarily dragged into this avoidable litigation. No amount whatsoever has been charged from the complainants by opposite party No.4 and no service as defined under the C.P. Act has been provided to the complainants by it. Therefore, there is no consumer dispute involved qua the complainants and opposite party No.4. The complaint qua it is totally misconceived, non-maintainable, vexatious and is total abuse of the process of this Commission. On merits, the averments made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. It is, however, submitted that till the date of filing of the written statement no completion certificate had been issued to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 for their project. The project of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 is located in the Mega Project of Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and PACL and the matter qua the said Mega Project is sub-judice before the Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.13301/2015 (Subrata Bhattacharya v. Securities and Exchange Board of India) and connected appeals. It is further submitted that inspection of the project was carried out by District Town Planner, GMADA and it has been found out that the construction of certain things on the site is not as per the plan. Denying all other averments made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint qua it has been made. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OPs Nos.1 to 3:

5. The complainants filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 complaint. It is, however, submitted that the possession of the residential unit was handed over to the complainants by mis- representation that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are having Completion Certificate and they will get the occupation certificate in near future. As per the provisions of the PAPRA the handing over of possession cannot be said to be legal in any manner without the completion certificate. Completion Certificate has not been issued by opposite party No.4 because of the reason that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 got the project sanctioned for 4.65 acres of land, whereas actually they are owners of land measuring 3.60 acres. The inspection reports have been procured by opposite parties Nos.1 to

3 for extraneous consideration. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP No.4:

6. The complainants filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by opposite party No.4 controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence of the parties:

7. In support of the complaint the complainants annexed with the complaint self-attested affidavit of complainant No.2 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, photographs Ex.C-10, Ex.C12, Ex.C-13 and documents Ex.C-11, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-20. They also annexed with the rejoinder to the written statement filed by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 copies of statement of account and payment receipts Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22. On the other hand, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 annexed with the written statement self-attested affidavit of their Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 authorized signatory Mandeep Singla along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7. Opposite party No.4 annexed with its written statement self-attested affidavit of Senior Town Planner (Licensing) dated 10.4.2019.

8. We have carefully gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them in support of those averments. The complainant submitted written arguments and we have also gone through the same. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Contentions of the parties:

9. Learned counsel for the complainants argued on the same lines as have been averred in the complaint and the rejoinders to the written statements filed by them to the written statements of the opposite parties. In the written arguments it was submitted that the possession of the apartment has been handed over to the complainant by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 without having Completion Certificate and in the absence of Completion Certificate the possession is not legal and as per the provisions of Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 the Residents Welfare Association cannot be got registered without the completion and occupation certificate. It was further submitted that none of the complainants is having any other plot or flat or residential house in whole of the India. On 22.9.2016 the possession of the flat was handed over without disclosing that opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are not having the completion certificate and occupation certificate and after getting some wood work etc. done, the complainants started residing in the Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 flat and are still residing there. As per Article 3 of the Buyers Agreement a separate maintenance agreement was required to be executed, however, no such, agreement was executed by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 but they started charging for the maintenance from the complainants. It was orally argued that Residents Welfare Association was formed by the residents but the same has got no legal sanctity as the same cannot be got registered with the competent authority as per the provisions of Section 17(2) in Chapter IV of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 without obtaining occupation certificate for the building from the concerned competent authority. Even otherwise as per Section 14 of the PAPRA without completion certificate and occupation certificate the possession is not legal and valid. Moreover, the possession has been taken by the complainants under compelling circumstances. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainants that though the possession has been delivered, which they have taken to safeguard their money and there is non-compliance of the terms as published in the brochure and thereafter mentioned in the allotment letter and the Buyers Agreement, which have been placed on record. Even the sale deed has been executed without completing the formalities. The area in question is less than which was actually projected to be developed. It is alleged that the allottees sale deeds have been got done from the PACL but the fault does not lie with the complainants. It is for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 to do the needful. Thus, the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are deficient in providing service to the complainants and have also adopted unfair trade practice. He Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 prayed that this complaint is liable to be allowed and all the reliefs claimed therein are liable to be granted in favour of the complainants. He made reference to the following judgments:-

1. First Appeal No.2082 of 2018 (M/S A.R.G. HOUSING PVT. LTD. v. AMIT KUMAR & ANR.) decided by the Honble National Commission on 2.5.2019;

2. Consumer Complaint No.502 of 2018 (Sheena Puri v. Emaar MGF Land Limited through its Manager) decided by this Commission on 15.11.2018; and

3. Consumer Complaint No.434 of 2017 (Ms. Ruchi Negi and another v. The Taj Towers) decided by the Additional Bench of this Commission on 27.11.2017.

10. Learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 argued on the similar lines as have been averred in their reply. It was also orally argued by him that the necessary inspections have already been carried out and the possession has already been delivered, which has been taken with open eyes. The remaining conditions as required will be done in due course. Only some requirements as per the provisions are to be fulfilled. Otherwise the project is fully developed. It was further argued that the C.P. Act has become a builder threatening Act. It was prayed that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same be dismissed with heavy costs. He made reference to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 1491 (HUDA and another v. Babeswar Kanhar and another). Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

11. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 also argued on the same lines as averred in its written reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua opposite party No.4. Consideration of Contentions:

12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. So far as the main issue with regard to the Completion Certificate is concerned, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 applied to opposite party No.4 for issuance of completion certificate, which formed Inspection Committee and the said Committee carried out the inspection. After thorough inspection it was recommended to issue Partial Completion Certificate of Block-A only as per the submitted application of the concerned promoter, vide its Report, Ex.C-15. Opposite party No.4 after perusing the case for issuance of Partial Completion Certificate in respect of the project in question found some deficiencies in the said project and brought the same to the notice of opposite parties, vide letter dated 7.9.2016, Ex.C-17. The deficiencies so pointed out in that letter, when translated into English, read as under:-

1) Since you have not constructed basement for parking, therefore, the area for proportionate parking in Tower for Partial Completion is less.

2) The proportionate green area in the tower for Partial Completion has not been developed.

3) There is no clarification regarding the construction of S.T.P. at the spot in the report of the Committee. Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

4) There is no certificate of supervision from the qualified Structure Engineer with regard to the Structure Safety.

5) You have not submitted NOC from the Pearl Infrastructure. It was stated that the Partial Completion Certificate shall be issued after removal of the above mentioned deficiencies. Further vide another letter dated 10.1.2018 by opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.1 it was informed that drawings were not in accordance with the sanctioned Plan. Various buildings like changing room near the swimming pool and switch room have been constructed, which are not shown in the drawing. Besides that, the measurement of the site in the drawing has been shown as 295 feet but on the spot it is 200 feet. The case was returned with the instructions to remove the deficiencies and the parking, green spaces and left out places be properly shown in the drawing and thereafter further appropriate action will be taken for issuance of partial completion certificate. Thereafter the complainants also wrote e-mails Ex.C-19 and Ex.C-20 dated 6.1.2019 and 13.1.2019 but there is no progress. In view of the fact that various objections have been raised by opposite party No.4 and deficiencies have been pointed out, vide Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18, the partial completion certificate or completion certificate cannot be issued till the objections and deficiencies are removed. Mere inspection is not sufficient. It is only to the competent authority to satisfy itself before issuing the Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate to the project of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. No Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate has been Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 placed on record by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, it is held that the possession of the flat in question was delivered to the complainants without obtaining Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate.

14. In the absence of Completion Certificate issued by the competent authority as per Section 14 of PAPRA, the Partial Completion Certificate and offer of possession cannot be considered. Section 14 of PAPRA deals with responsibility of the promoter to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificate from the competent Authority, which reads as under:

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate.

15. Further, Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), which is applicable to the properties falling within the Municipal Limits, provides as under: Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 No person shall occupy or allow other person to occupy any new building or part of a new building for any purpose whatsoever until such building or part thereof has been certified by the local authority or of any person authorized by it in this behalf to be in every respect completed according to the sanctioned plan and fit for the use for which it is erected.

16. A reference can also be made to Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, which reads as under:-

272. Completion Certificate. (1) Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or erect a building or execute any work shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of the building or execution of the work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed by byelaws, made in this behalf and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or work. (2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or use or permit to be used any building or a part thereof effected by any such work until permission has been granted by the Commissioner in this behalf in accordance with bye-laws made under this Act: Provided that if the Commissioner fails within a period of thirty days after the receipt of the notice of completion to communicate his refusal in grant such permission, shall be deemed to have been granted. Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

17. There is no evidence on record to prove that the project, in question, or a part thereof has been got certified by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 from the local/competent authority, so as to deliver the possession of the flat in question, complete in all respects to the complainants. As already discussed above, no Completion / Occupation Certificates issued by the competent authority have been produced by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 on the record, which itself is violation of above reproduced Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12

(i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing) as well as Section 272 of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, reproduced above. Even till today, no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been produced before this Commission. Without issuance of such a certificate by the competent authority, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 cannot be said to be in a legal position to hand over possession of a particular property/flat in question. Thus, without Completion/Occupation Certificates, the possession of the flat delivered to the complainant on 22.9.2016 was just a paper possession and cannot be treated as a valid and legal possession specifically when in the adjoining Tower

i.e. AQUILA TOWER a fire incident took place and the authorities can ask the residents to vacate the premises till proper Certificate is issued. It is the specific case of the complainants that they had taken the possession just to safeguard their hard money coupled with the fact that they are paying huge interest to the Bank from where the home loan has been obtained by them. Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

18. Similar view has been taken by this Commission in Sheena Puris case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants. Honble National Commission in Amit Kumars case (supra) while dealing with the same issue has held that no house can be allowed to be occupied without obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate and that the appellant (therein) ought to have obtained the requisite Occupancy Certificate before it could offer possession of the allotted villa to the complainant in that case. The Additional Bench of this Commission in Ruchi Negis case (supra) where the possession was delivered without occupation certificate has held that as per PAPRA and as per the notification dated 2.9.2014 issued by opposite party No.4 the opposite party (therein) was required to get completion and occupation certificates before delivering the possession to the complainant but the same have not been taken.

19. Moreover, according to the provisions of Chapter IV- Association and Regulation of its Affairs, Section 17(2) of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 the Resident Welfare Association could be formed and registered only after obtaining the occupation certificate for the building. Section 17(2) of the said Act reads as under:- 17(2) After obtaining occupation certificate for the building and within three months of one third of the apartments being allotted, sold or otherwise transferred, the promoter shall make an application to the competent authority for the registration of Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 association, with the persons who have taken apartments as members and if the promoter fails to make such application, the allottee shall make such application. Hence it is held that the possession delivered to the complainants without obtaining Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities was not a legal and valid possession. The complainants had to take possession obviously in order to safeguard their hard earned money. Besides this, the opposite parties have not produced on record anything to prove that all the amenities/facilities like Club, Chemist Shop, Creche, Child Care Facility, Elderly Care Centre and Nurse Assistance etc. have been provided by the opposite parties. It certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.

20. So far as the objection of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 that the complaint is beyond limitation is concerned, once it is held that the possession of the flat in question delivered to the complainants is not a legal and valid possession, therefore, the complainants have continuous cause of action and, as such, it is held that this complaint is within limitation. This objection of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 is rejected accordingly.

21. So far as another objection of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 that the complainants are not consumers and have made investment in their project to earn profits is concerned, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 have not placed on record any evidence to prove that the Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019 complainants are engaged in sale and purchase of properties and are Property Dealers by profession. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016 and in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015 it is held that the complainants are not investors and as such, they fall within the definition of consumer as defined under the C.P. Act. This objection of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 is also rejected.

22. So far as the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Babeswar Kanhar and anothers case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 is concerned, the facts of that judgment are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case there is deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 in complying with the contractual obligations agreed upon by them in Buyers Agreement and they are not being compelled to perform an impossibility.

23. So far as the role of opposite party No.4 is concerned, from the averments and evidence on record it is apparently clear that there is no role of opposite party No.4 in the entire controversy involved in the present case. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.4. Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

24. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is partly allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 and is dismissed against opposite party No.4. The following directions are issued to opposite parties Nos.1 to 3:-

i) to obtain Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate in respect of the flat/project in question from the competent authorities concerned within a period of three months and hand over the copies thereof to the complainants, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total amount paid by the complainants towards the total sale consideration of the flat in question from 3.9.2019 till such certificates are obtained and delivered to them; ii) to comply with the provisions of Section 17(2) given in Chapter IV of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 and provide registered maintenance society to the complainants within three months; iii) to provide all the facilities like Club, Chemist Shop, Creche, Child Care Facility etc. as agreed in the Buyers Agreement within three months; iv) not to charge maintenance charges till the date of obtaining the Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate from the concerned competent authority; and

v) to pay 22,000/-, as litigation expenses within three months. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER June 03, 2019 Bansal Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019