Sanjay Tyagi v. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Premji Bhai Pramar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, 1980 (2) SCC 129	Seller’s pricing of property is a contractual matter, not subject to statutory control unless there is fraud or misstatement.	The Court held that the Consumer Fora cannot interfere with the final pricing of flats fixed by the seller unless there is fraud or misstatement.
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajai Pal Singh & Ors, 1989 (2) CPSC 107	Supports the principle that pricing is a contractual matter between buyer and seller.	Reinforced the principle that pricing is not ordinarily subject to consumer forum scrutiny.
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, 2007 (1) CPC 729 (SC)	Where allotment price is tentative, price revision is permissible; but unjustified extra charges are refundable.	The Court applied this principle to hold that the Development Authority can revise prices if initially tentative, but illegal or unjustified charges must be refunded.
Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amrit Lal Phulchand & Ors, III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC)	Consumer Forums cannot examine pricing of flats fixed by authorities; excess charges do not amount to deficiency in service.	The Court relied on this to hold that pricing disputes are not grounds for deficiency in service claims before Consumer Fora.
Gurdial Singh v. Housefed, Punjab Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2016	Consumer Fora cannot interfere with flat pricing when complainants had agreed to terms and taken possession without protest.	Applied to conclude complainants were bound to pay revised costs and pricing does not constitute deficiency in service.
State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (5) SCC 121	Complaints barred by limitation cannot be entertained unless delay is condoned for sufficient cause.	The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for written reasons to condone delay.
V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011 CTJ 1 (Supreme Court)	Consumer forums lack jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed beyond two years unless delay is condoned upon sufficient cause.	Reiterated limitation principles and requirement of condonation application for late complaints.
State Of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, 2007 (Bombay High Court)	Limitation period runs continuously and correspondence does not extend it.	Applied to hold that refusal to pay does not reset limitation period and correspondence after limitation expiry is ineffective.
United Bank of India vs. Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC)	Correspondence does not extend limitation period; claims must be filed within prescribed time.	Supported dismissal of complaints filed beyond limitation despite correspondence.
Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 (4) CLT 254	Complaints must be filed within limitation; mere correspondence does not extend limitation.	Reinforced limitation principles in consumer complaints.
T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan CGHS Ltd., 2016 (2) CPJ 273 (National Commission)	Taking physical possession without protest ends privity of contract and ceases consumer status.	Applied to hold complainant ceased to be consumer after unconditional possession without protest.
Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana, Estate Manager, Housing Board, Sector 6, Panchkula, Revision Petition No.3338 of 2007	Possession taken without pre-condition ends consumer relationship; complaints filed thereafter are not maintainable.	Used to conclude complainant ceased to be consumer after unconditional possession, leading to dismissal of complaint.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

1) Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Sanjay Tyagi S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Tyagi, Resident of Flat No.127, Floor 2nd, Category-I at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

1. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), Punjab, through its Managing Director, SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. (http://punjabcooperation.gov.in/html/housefed.html)

2) Consumer Complaint No.408 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019

V. Rihani S/o Dr. G.D. Rihani, Resident of Flat No.186, Floor 1st, Category-I at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

3) Consumer Complaint No.410 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 Major Ravinder Singh Notra S/o Late Major Rajinder Singh Notra, Resident of Flat No.146, Floor 1st, Category-I at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

4) Consumer Complaint No.412 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Chander Prakash Malik S/o Sh. Dhalla Ram Malik, Resident of Flat No.141, Ground Floor, Category-I at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

5) Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Jatinder Paul Kaur W/o Late Sh. Jaswant Rai, Resident of Flat No.22 Floor 1st, Category-II at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 Versus

6) Consumer Complaint No.411 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Parmeshwar Mahay S/o Sh. B.C. Mahay, Resident of Flat No.26, Floor 1st, Category-II at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

7) Consumer Complaint No.403 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Raksha Bhandari W/o Sh. Ajit Singh Datta, Resident of Flat No.1720-B, Floor 2nd, Category-III at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-II), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

1. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), Punjab, through its Managing Director, SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 (http://punjabcooperation.gov.in/html/housefed.html)

8) Consumer Complaint No.413 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Joga Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, Resident of Flat No.1720-C, Floor 3rd Category-III at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-II), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

9) Consumer Complaint No.415 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Ajit Pal Singh Chauhan S/o Sh. Ujaggar Singh, Resident of Flat No.1697, Ground Floor, Category-III at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-I), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

2. The Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), Punjab, SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 (http://punjabcooperation.gov.in/html/housefed.html) .Opposite Parties 10) Consumer Complaint No.405 of 2019 Date of institution : 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 21.05.2019 Mr. Vinod Sharma S/o Late Sh. Yashpal, Resident of Flat No.1646, Floor Ground, Category-V at Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79 (Group-II), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. .Complainant Versus

2. The Superintending Engineer, Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed), Punjab, SCO No.150-151-152, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. (http://punjabcooperation.gov.in/html/housefed.html) .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member. Present:- For the complainant : Ms. Palak Dev, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: This order will dispose of above mentioned thirteen (13) Consumer Complaints filed by the different complainants against the same opposite parties, 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 pertains to the dispute of allotment of flat in the same Scheme of the opposite parties. The details of the relevant sequence of events mentioned in each complaint are given in the below drawn Table: Consumer Complaint Allotment Details Intimation regarding allotment and Possession Handing over of Possession Remarks

1. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-2, at tentative cost 17,15,000/-. Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.127, Floor-II, Category-I and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 42,96,000/- Physical Possession of the said flat was delivered to complainant 31.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.) Allegation of delay in delivery of possession; enhanced price of the flat; and charging of excess Conveyance Deed charges.

2. Consumer Complaint No.408 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re- allocation Letter dated 04.06.2004, Ex.C-2, at tentative cost Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.186, Floor-I, Category-I and the final cost of Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 17.12.2014, as per -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 17,15,000/-; which was earlier allotted to Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Davinder Singh and transferred in favour of the complainant on his request. the flat was fixed as 46,27,000/- Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.)

3. Consumer Complaint No.410 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-2, at tentative cost 17,15,000/-. Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.146, Floor-I, Category-I and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 46,27,000/-. Along with this letter, the complainant has also annexed letter dated 28.06.2006 issued by the opposite parties, seeking his option either to withdraw the earnest money deposited towards the flat along with interest at the rate of 10% or send his consent to retain the flat at the enhanced cost, to be intimated during the course of construction/after the construction of flats. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 19.08.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

4. Consumer Complaint No.412 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re- Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 allocation Letter dated 24.02.2009, Ex.C-2; which was earlier allotted to one Parvez Kumar S/o Sh. K.L. Sharma and transferred in favour of the complainant on his application and affidavit dated 24.02.2009. that he was allotted Flat No.141, Ground Floor, Category- I and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 44,17,000/-. by the complainant 01.11.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.).

5. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Re- allocation Letter dated 28.11.2013, Ex.C-2 (colly.); which was earlier allotted to her husband Sh. Jaswant Rai, vide letter dated 24.03.2004, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/- and was transferred in favour of the complainant after his death. Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that she was allotted Flat No.22, Floor No.I, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 30,62,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 21.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

6. Consumer Complaint No.411 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Re- allocation Letter dated 03.02.2006, Ex.C-2 (colly.); which was earlier Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.26, Floor No.I, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed as Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 22.12.2014, as per Physical Possession -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 allotted to one Sh. Meenakshi Singla for tentative cost 12,00,000/- and was transferred in favour of the complainant on her request. 30,62,000/-. Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.).

7. Consumer Complaint No.403 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-2 (colly.), for tentative cost 9,00,000/-. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1720-B, Floor No.II, Category- III and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 21,36,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 17.09.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

8. Consumer Complaint No.413 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-2 (colly.), for tentative cost 9,00,000/-. Vide letter, Ex.C-

12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1702-C, Floor No.III, Category- III and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 20,81,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 10.09.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

9. Consumer Complaint No.415 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Re- allocation Letter dated 29.01.2010, Ex.C-2 (colly.), which was earlier allotted to one Sh. Paramjit Singh and Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1697, Category-III and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 23,00,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 28.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 transferred in favour of the complainant in his request.

10. Consumer Complaint No.405 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-V flat, vide Re- allocation Letter dated 21.06.2011, Ex.C-2 (colly.). The said flat was initially allotted to one Balbir Singh Bajwa, vide Letter of Allocation dated 25.03.2004, who got transferred the same in favour of Shivani Thakur, vide Allocation Letter dated 26.12.2007. Smt. Shivani Thakur further got transferred the said flat in favour of Sh. Gulshan Kumar Kamra, vide Allocation Letter dated 25.03.2008; who further transferred the same in favour of Amardeep Singh Chahal, vide Re-allocation Letter dated 17.04.2009; Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1646, Ground Floor Category-V and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 11,50,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 29.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 who further got the same transferred the same in favour of the complainant vide Re- allocation Letter dated 21.06.2011, Ex.C-2 (colly.).

11. Consumer Complaint No.406 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-V flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 25.03.2004, Ex.C-2 (colly.), for tentative cost 5,50,000/-. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1650-C, Floor No.III, Category- V and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 10,41,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 27.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

12. Consumer Complaint No.409 of 2019 complainant was allotted Category-V flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 25.03.2004, Ex.C-2 (colly.), for tentative cost 5,50,000/-. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014 , Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1642-B, Floor No.III, Category- V and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 10,68,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 27.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

13. Consumer Complaint No.414 of 2019 Earlier, Smt. Amarjit Kaur Sandhu was allotted Category-V flat at tentative cost 5,50,000/-, vide Letter of Allocation dated 25.032004, Ex.C-2 (colly.); from whom the Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant was intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1643, Floor I, Category-V and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 11,50,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 31.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 complainant purchased the said flat, vide letter dated 19.09.2011. This fact is also evident from Letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 issued to the complainant, in which same Form No.2554 is given as is given in Letter of Allocation dated 25.03.2014 issued in favour of Amarjit Kaur. In all the above noted complaints, similar facts have been given, similar documents have been filed and similar prayers have been made. However, for the purpose of detailed facts, we are taking up Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019

2. The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to pay interest of 24,69,600/- (at the rate of 18% per annum on 17,15,000/-) on the amount received by the opposite parties from the date of deposit till date of delivery of possession; ii) to refund Conveyance Deed charges i.e. 3,52,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum; Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 iii) to refund the excess amount charged on account of revised/enhanced cost of the flat; iv) to pay 2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service adopted by the opposite parties;

v) to pay compensation of 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and vi) to pay 50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant had applied for a flat of Category-I in the housing scheme floated by the opposite parties in the year 2004, known as Super Deluxe Flats of Five Different Categories situated at Sector 79, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Draw of lots was held on 03.03.2004 and the complainant was declared successful. He was allotted flat No.127, 2nd Floor, Category-I, vide letter dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-2. Vide Brochure of the scheme, Ex.C-1, and allocation letter, Ex.C-2, the opposite parties offered two options for making payment of the flat to be constructed and allotted by them. The first option was to make 60% payment in 8 quarterly instalments during the course of construction and the other was to pay the entire tentative price of the flat in full and avail a benefit of 5% on the full price thereof. The complainant had opted for Option No.II, according which 100% (i.e. 17,15,000/-) of the price of the flat was scheduled to be paid between 30.06.2004 to 31.03.2006. However, the opposite parties did not start the construction, but kept on demanding instalments from the allottees. The construction was to be started in the year 2004 and the instalments were to be paid between Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 the above said period, which were to commensurate with the progress of construction. The possession was to be delivered in the year 2006 immediately after payment of last instalment on 31.03.2006. After receipt of the entire payment, the opposite parties sent letters to the allottees in June, 2006, stating that the land, on which the construction was to be started, was under some legal dispute and, thus, the construction could not be raised until the legal dispute was over. However, neither details of the area of the land were provided, nor the details of litigation were disclosed. The allottees, including the complainant, believing the opposite parties, being Government/State/Subsidiary society, kept on waiting for possession after disposal of alleged dispute. The opposite parties had been playing fraud with all the allottees, right from the beginning. The letter dated 07.10.2005, which is used by them as a veil to cover up the delay in raising construction, is a clear proof of connivance of HOUSEFED and GMADA, who had been helping each other with some hidden intention, as is evident from the written statement dated 14.07.2015 filed by GMADA (respondent No.2) on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 in C.W.P. No.8766 of 2005 (Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.) before the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein Para No.19, it was pleaded that no possession of any land has been given to HOUSEFED qua the said allotment. However, in fact, as per record, contrary to the written statement filed by PUDA, the physical possession of the HOUSEFED land had already been delivered/given by PUDA/GMADA on 11.03.2003, vide Possession Certificate dated 08.04.2003. This shows that the PUDA and HOUSEFED were hand in Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 glove in usurping the interest earned on the hard earned money of the allottees. It was further averred that the opposite parties gave advertisement in newspaper Indian Express on 16.11.2008, stating that the construction was being started shortly. Members of the Housefed Flat Owners Sangharsh Committee approached Commissioner, Housefed and apprised him about the suffering of various allottees at the hands of Housefed employees. No stay was ever granted and the opposite parties falsely made the same as a ground for not starting the construction. In the year 2009, the Chief Engineer, GMADA apprised the opposite parties, vide letter dated 18.09.2009, that there was no impediment in raising the construction of the said Housing Complex, as per their layout plan, but even then the construction was not started. After not getting any satisfactory answers from the opposite parties, the Housefed flat owners wrote letters dated 25.03.2009, 27.03.2009, 17.05.2009, 01.06.2009, 15.06.2009, 16.06.2009, 17.06.2009, 01.07.2009, 02.07.2009 and 01.10.2009 to the opposite parties, with a request to start construction of the flats. Thereafter, a detailed letter dated 15.10.2009 was also sent to the opposite parties in this regard. Later on, vide letter dated 08.09.2010, opposite party No.1 informed the President, Housefed Flat Owners Sangharsh Committee, that the work of construction had been allotted and the contractor would start the same soon, whereas vide letter dated 27.10.2010, opposite party No.2 informed the President of the said Committee that the work of construction had been started. The complainant also sent a notice to the opposite parties to reimburse the interest, which they were receiving on the amount collected from various allottees, as well as the monthly rent, Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 as they were compelled to live on rent on account of delay in delivery of possession within the promised period. The Housefed Flat Owners Welfare Society also wrote a letter dated 15.09.2013 to Sh. S.C. Aggarwal; who directed the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation Department to inquire into the matter and to give satisfactory answer to the applicants. However, the Cooperation Department made no effort to redress the grievance of the applicants. The opposite parties, vide letter dated 15.05.2014, Ex.C-11, gave two choices to 52 allottees, to whom possession had not been delivered till then. The first option was to wait for delivery of possession, in which case the allottees were bound to pay the escalated cost of flats, as fixed by the HOUSEFED. The second option was to get the refund of the deposited amount, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The complainant was allotted flat No.127, Floor-II, Category-I at Housing Complex in Sector 79, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. However, the opposite parties sent communication/intimation regarding allotment and possession No.Hfed/TW/4853 dated 14.07.2014 (in continuation of their earlier letter dated 24.03.2004), whereby they demanded the balance payment of 25,81,000/-; which was deposited by the complainant under protest. It was further averred that the construction was delayed on a flimsy ground that the land measuring 03 Kanals 02 Marlas was under litigation, but the said land still has not been allotted. Thus, it was clear that the delay in raising construction was not on account of the litigation regarding the said land, if any. If that was the reason, the construction would not have been started till the date of filing of the complaint. In fact, by delaying the construction for 10 long years, the opposite parties kept on utilizing the Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 amount of various allottees, for their own purposes. The construction was started in the year 2010 and even the last instalment was paid by the complainant much before. The initial cost of the flat was 9,00,000/-, but the final cost thereof was illegally enhanced almost three times. The above said Sangharsh Committee filed Civil Writ Petitions before the Honble High Court, in which the opposite parties started defrauding the petitioners by giving inappropriate, incomplete and misleading calculations; for which the Managing Director had to face contempt proceedings in which he made a statement that petitioners were free to inspect the entire record available with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the petitioners sent number of letters for inspection of records, but the entire record was not made available and they adopted dilatory tactics. It has been further averred that the opposite parties again usurped the huge amount of money from the allottees on account of Conveyance Deed charges, but later on it was found that the amount was charged in excess of the actual cost of Conveyance Deeds. On raising this issue by various allottees, some of them were refunded the excess amount. The Housefed Flat Owners Welfare Society wrote letter dated 05.02.2019 to the opposite parties to refund the Conveyance Deed charges to rest of the allottees to the extent of 3.52 lac, 2.40 lac, 1.76 lac, 1.20 lac and 0.88 lac, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum for Category-I, Category-II, Category-III, Category-IV and Category-V respectively. The delay in delivery of possession amounts to deficiency in service and, as such, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest on the deposited amount for the period of delay till delivery of possession. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. Contentions of the Complainants

4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants at the admission stage of the complaints and have gone through the record carefully.

5. Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently contended that the opposite parties floated a scheme under the name and style of Co-operative Housing Scheme of Built up flats in Sector 79, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in two different pockets, measuring 5.50 acres and 5.49 acres in the year 2004. However, at the time of making advertisement, the opposite parties were not in possession of the land and the same was given to them by PUDA only on 22.01.2010. The construction of the project started late in the year 2010. Thus, the opposite parties had no right to collect the amount from the allottees, when there was no construction raised during that period. It was further contended that there was no stay qua the said Complex and, thus, the opposite parties have committed fraud upon the allottees, by telling a lie that there had been stay granted by the Honble High Court. It was further contended that no specific period was given in the Brochure for delivering possession of the flats to the allottees. After collecting huge amount illegally, without raising any kind of construction, the opposite parties obtained option from various allottees to retain the flat and made bound to pay the remaining amount towards enhanced price of the flats, fraudulently. It has been further contended that the cost of the flat has been increased about 3 times of the tentative cost thereof, but no Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 calculations, details or basis of such a huge increase have been provided by the opposite parties. It was further contended that the scheme was launched in the year 2004, whereas the possession of the flat, in question, was offered to the allottees in the year 2014 i.e. after expiry of 10 years, without any cogent explanation. There was no exact date given in the Brochure regarding delivery of possession and delay in delivering the possession amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, as such, the complainants are entitled to all the reliefs, as claimed in the complaints. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the complainants has mentioned following cases in the complaint, but has not supplied copies of the same:

i) Premier Homes v. Oliver Archibald Aranha and Anr. Revision Petition No.269 of 2006, decided by the Honble National Commission on 30.10.2009; ii) Krishna Yadav v. Unitech Ltd. 2018 (2) CPJ 284 (NC); iii) PUDA v. Gian Singh 2003 (4) CPJ 48; and iv) Gurjinder Singh Gill v. M/s Premium Acres Infrastructure Anr. 2017 (1) CLT 202 (State Commission, UT, Chandigarh); Consideration of Contentions

6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants.

7. In view of the factual matrix involved in all the complaints as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants, the following questions arise for determination, at the admission stage of the complaints: Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019

I) Whether the Consumer Fora has power to go into the pricing of the flat (s)? II) Whether the complaints are time barred? III) Whether, after taking physical possession of the flats without raising any kind of protest at that time, the complainants ceased to be consumers of the opposite parties? Question No.(I): Whether the Consumer Fora has power to go into the pricing of the flat (s)?

8. It is relevant to mention that the Brochure, of the said Scheme launched by the opposite parties has been produced on record in all the complaints, as Ex.C-1. Clause-7 of the Brochure deals with Handing Over of Possession and the same reads as under:

7 (a). The exact/final cost of the flat shall be worked out after the flats have been completed but before handing over the flat. The cost of difference due to allotment of floor, change in covered area of flat or due to any other reason whatsoever, the same shall be payable by the allottee at the time of the possession. The price is liable to increase due to variation in plinth area, scope of work, change in specification, design, increase in cost of land, rate of interest, amount of interest, increase in the cost of raw materials or for any other reason and the same shall be binding upon you.

9. The opposite parties had fixed the final cost of the flats after completion of the construction and intimated the allottees/complainants to pay the balance amount (s), as per letters, Ex.C-12 (colly.), produdced in all the complaints. The possession of the flats, in question, has already been delivered to the complainants in the last quarter of the year 2014, vide Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (colly.), after the payment of entire balance sale consideration by them. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019

10. Regarding the determination of the final cost of the flat, as demanded by the opposite parties, after completion of the project, Honble Supreme Court in case Premji Bhai Pramar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 1980 (2) SCC 129 held as under: There is no suggestion that there was a mis-statement or incorrect statement or any fraudulent concealment in the information supplied in the brochure published by the Authority on the strength of which they applied and obtained flats. How the seller works out his price is a matter of his own choice unless it is subject to statutory control. Price of property is in the realm of contract between a seller and buyer. There is no obligation on the purchaser to purchase the flat at the price offered.

11. Similar proposition of law was laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajai Pal Singh & Ors. 1989 (2) CPSC 107.

12. Further in case Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank 2007 (1) CPC 729 (SC) under the head The Principles in Para No.10 observed as under:

10. Where a Development Authority forms layouts and allots plots/flats (or houses) by inviting applications, the following general principles regulate the granting of relief to a consumer (applicant for allotment) who complains of delay in delivery or non-delivery and seeks redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('Act' for short) - [vide : Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta - 1994 (1) SCC 243, Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh - 2004 (5) SCC 65, and Haryana Development Authority vs. Darsh Kumar - 2005 (9) SCC 449, as also Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Union of India - 2000 (6) SCC 113]: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (f) Where the plot/flat/house has been allotted at a tentative or provisional price, subject to final determination of price on completion of the project (that is acquisition proceedings and development activities), the Development Authority will be entitled to revise or increase the price. But where the allotment is at a fixed price, and a higher price or extra payments are illegally or unjustifiably demanded and collected, the allottee will be entitled Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 to refund of such excess with such interest, as may be determined with reference to the facts of the case.

13. Honble National Commission in case Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amrit Lal Phulchand & Ors. III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC) observed that question of pricing cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forums, since the price of the flat is not fixed by any law and that even if any excess charge has been collected by way of price, the same will not constitute a ground for contending that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

14. This Commission in case Gurdial Singh v. Housefed, Punjab Consumer Complaint No.269 of 2016, decided on 12.05.2017, while relying upon the aforesaid cases also held that Consumer Fora cannot go into the pricing of the flat, in question, and the complainants were bound to pay the revised cost of the flats to the opposite parties, as they entered into the contract for purchasing the flats, in question, after duly reading and understanding the terms of the Brochure and allotment letters and it cannot be a matter of deficiency in service.

15. In the instant complaints also, as already discussed above, the physical possession of the flats was taken by the complainants in the year 2014, without any pre-condition or protest. The present complaints have been filed after about 5 years therefrom, when there is no privity of contract between the parties. Therefore, applying the ratio of above noted authorities, the present complainants also ceased to be consumers of the opposite parties after taking physical possession of their respective flats in the year 2014, without raising any kind of protest/objection. So far as the authorities relied upon by learned Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 counsel for the complainants are concerned, the same are distinguishable, in view of the law laid down in the above discussed authorities.

16. It is also important to note that numerous cases have been filed/decided by this Commission earlier, in which a specific consent was sought by the Housefed from the allottees in the year 2006, seeking their options either to withdraw the earnest money deposited towards the flat, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum or to retain the flat at the enhanced cost, to be intimated during the course of construction/after construction of the flats. The allottees had duly exercised their option and gave undertakings to the Housefed, expressing their willingness to retain the flats at the enhanced cost, as fixed by Housefed during the course of construction/after completion of construction of the project. The present complaints also involve the dispute pertaining the above said period and, as such, such like consents must have been given by the complainants also. However, it seems that those consent letters have been intentionally withheld by the complainants, except in Complaint No.410 of 2019, from which it could be proved that they had made themselves bound to pay the enhanced cost fixed by the Housefed after/during construction; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against the complainants.

17. In view of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, the Commission cannot go into the pricing of the flats fixed by the opposite parties and, as such, the complainants are not entitled to recover the difference of tentative cost and final cost of the flats, in question, nor they are entitled to any interest thereon. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 Question No.(II): Whether the complaints are time barred?

18. Admittedly, the physical possession of the flats have been taken by the complainants in all the complaints in the year 2014, vide Physical Possession Certificates, Ex.C-12 (colly.), after making payment of balance sale considerations. The complainants did not raise any kind of dispute, such as delay in delivery of possession or excess charging of Conveyance Deed charges etc. at the time of taking over the possession of their respective flats. The complainants should have raised such grievances at the time of taking the possession of the flats, but for the first time they have raised the issue of delay in delivery of possession and other issues, by way of filing these complaints on 16.05.2019 i.e. after about lapse of five years of the taking over of possession by them. The complainants have produced copies of orders passed by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as various letters sent by various allottees and Housefed Flat Owners Sangharsh Committee to the opposite parties, with an intention to bring the complaints within limitation.

19. Section 24-A of the Act lays down that the Consumer Forum shall not entertain a complaint, unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The Honble Supreme Court in State Bank of Indias case (supra) observed in Para No.8 as under:-

8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, `shall not admit a complaint' occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

20. This view of law was further reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment reported as V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes 2011 CTJ 1 (SUPREME COURT) (CP). It was held by the Honble Supreme Court as under:- Section 24A(1) contains a negative legislative mandate against admission of a complaint which has been filed after 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In other words, the consumer forums do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if the same is not filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. This power is required to be exercised after giving opportunity of hearing to the complainant, who can seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2) by showing that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 prescribed under Section 24A(1). If the complaint is per se barred by time and the complainant does not seek condonation of delay under Section 24A(2), the consumer forums will have no option but to dismiss the same. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the recent judgments in State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), 2009 CTJ 481 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 5 SCC 121 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company v. National Insurance Company and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (SC)(CP)=(2009) 7 SCC 768.

21. Still further, Honble Bombay High Court in case State Of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited of 2007 decided on 01.02.2013 held in Para No.32 as follows:

32. In my view, refusal to pay the amount demanded by the petitioner, would not commence fresh period of limitation which had already commenced. In view of Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, once time is begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit or make an application stops it. Once time starts, it does not stop. Limitation is extended only when there is an acknowledgment of liability or part payment. Correspondence does not extend the period of limitation.

22. Similarly, in United Bank of India vs. Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC), Honble National Commission observed as under:- 6..........This argument is devoid of force because correspondence does not extend limitation, particularly, when first request for refund is made after claim became time-barred. Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 In this matter, claim became time barred in the year 1995 and letter has been written on 18.11.2007. Complainant has not placed any letter from 1995 to 2007 and, thus claim being barred by limitation, learned District Form committed error in allowing complaint."

23. Likewise, in Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 (4) CLT. 254, Hon'ble National Commission has also observed that "mere correspondence does not extend limitation and complaint was to be filed within period of 2 years from first intimation.

24. In view of the ratio of the law laid down in the above noted authorities, it is clear that no amount of correspondence can extend the limitation period, which had already commenced from the date of accrual of cause of action in the present complaints in the last quarter of the year 2014, when the complainants took over possession of their respective flats, without raising any kind of objection. No application has been filed along with the complaints seeking condonation of delay. Thus, it is evident that the complainants have not approached this Commission within two years therefrom. In such circumstances, the present complaints are hopelessly barred by limitation. Question No.III: Whether, after taking physical possession of the flats without raising any kind of protest at that time, the complainants ceased to be consumers of the opposite parties?

25. As already observed above, the complainants have already taken possession of their respective flats way back in the year 2014, without raising any kind of objection or protest. They did not raise any Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 kind of issue at that time. Honble National Commission in case T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan CGHS Ltd. 2016 (2) CPJ 273 held in Para No.10 as follows:

10. It is an admitted fact that petitioner had taken the physical possession of the flat on 27.02.2004, though there was delay of

11 months in giving possession on behalf of the respondent. However, the Consumer Complaint was filed on 08.08.2005, that is, about one and half years, after petitioner got possession. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of taking possession of the flat, petitioner had lodged any protest with regard to delay or took conditional possession. When petitioner had taken the possession of the flat on 27.02.2004, unconditionally and without any protest, thereafter he ceased to be a consumer. The agreement executed between the parties comes to an end. Thus, on the date when Consumer Complaint was filed, there was no privity of contract between the parties. As such, the Consumer Complaint on the face of it is not maintainable.

26. Similarly, in Revision Petition No.3338 of 2007 (Harpal Arya

v. Housing Board Haryana, Estate Manager, Housing Board, Sector 6, Panchkula) decided on 04.01.2016, the Honble National Commission held in Para-15 as under:

15. Thus, from the aforesaid documents, it is manifestly clear that petitioner had executed the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement with the respondent and in pursuance thereof, he had also taken possession of house on 27.10.2004. Further, as per possession certificate, it is clear that petitioner had taken the possession without any pre-conditions. Now, after getting the possession, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to state that house is not in a habitable condition. Once petitioner had taken the possession with open eyes and without any pre- Consumer Complaint No.407 of 2019 conditions, he cease to be a consumer. The Consumer Complaint was filed on 25.05.2005, that is, after about seven months of taking over of possession of the house. Therefore, on the face of it, the petitioner was not a consumer at the time of filing of the complaint, since there was no privity of contract between the parties. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

27. In view of the ratio of aforesaid authorities, the complainants, after taking possession of their respective flats in the year 2014 without raising any kind of objection, ceased to be the consumers of the opposite parties; because after taking physical possession of the flats, the agreement between the parties came to an end and thereafter there was no privity of contract between them. Conclusion

28. In view of our above discussion, all the above noted complaints are dismissed in limine. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER May 21, 2019. (Gurmeet S)

CC/407/2019

Sanjay Tyagi v. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

Opposite Parties' Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sanjay Tyagi v. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed)

Comments