Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion disposes of twenty-three Consumer Complaints filed by different complainants against the same opposite parties under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaints concern disputes related to the allotment of flats under a housing scheme by the opposite parties in Sector 79, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The complainants were allotted flats between 2004 and 2016, with tentative costs fixed initially and final costs enhanced during or after construction. The opposite parties delayed construction and possession, citing legal disputes over land possession and stay orders by the High Court. Despite payments made by the complainants in installments, possession was delivered only after several years, mostly in 2014-2015. The complainants alleged deficiency in service, fraudulent enhancement of flat prices, and excess charges for conveyance deeds. The complaints were filed in 2019, seeking interest, refunds, compensation, and litigation expenses. The opposite parties denied fault, asserting delays were due to court stay orders and that complainants had accepted enhanced prices and taken possession, thus barring claims. The Commission consolidated the complaints due to similar facts and legal questions and proceeded to decide them collectively.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Consumer Fora has the power to go into the pricing of the flats?
  2. Whether the complaints are barred by limitation?
  3. Whether, after taking physical possession of the flats without protest, the complainants ceased to be consumers of the opposite parties?

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

  • The opposite parties launched the housing scheme without possession of land and delayed construction unlawfully.
  • There was no stay order affecting the specific complex, and the delay was a fraud on allottees.
  • The final cost of flats was enhanced illegally about threefold without justification or basis.
  • The complainants were forced to pay enhanced prices after signing undertakings under pressure.
  • Delay in possession caused them mental agony, financial loss (including rent paid), and amounts to deficiency in service.
  • Excess conveyance deed charges were collected unlawfully and need refund with interest.
  • Relief sought includes interest on amounts paid, refund of excess charges, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

  • The scheme was partially self-financed with payment in installments; delays were due to stay orders by the Hon'ble High Court affecting land possession.
  • The complainants were given an option in 2006 to either seek refund with interest or retain flats at enhanced costs, which was accepted by them.
  • Possession of land was delivered only in 2010 after vacation of stay; construction started thereafter and completed within reasonable time.
  • The complainants took possession of the flats after paying the balance amount.
  • The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to question pricing of flats as price determination is contractual and not statutory.
  • The complaints are barred by limitation as they were filed about five years after possession was taken.
  • No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been committed by the opposite parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Premji Bhai Pramar & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors, 1980 (2) SCC 129 Pricing of flats is a contractual matter and not subject to Consumer Fora jurisdiction unless statutory control exists. The Court held that the Consumer Forum cannot question the final price fixed by the opposite parties.
Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Ajai Pal Singh & Ors, 1989 (2) CPSC 107 Similar principle that pricing is a contractual issue and not subject to Consumer Forum scrutiny. Reinforced that Consumer Fora cannot interfere with pricing of property.
Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, 2007 (1) CPC 729 (SC) Development authorities can revise price post allotment if tentative price was fixed; illegal excess demands entitle refund. The Court applied this to hold that revised pricing was permissible and Consumer Forum cannot grant relief on pricing.
Gujarat Housing Board v. Datania Amrit Lal Phulchand & Ors, III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC) Consumer Forums cannot examine pricing as price is not fixed by law; excess charges do not constitute deficiency in service. Used to support that pricing disputes are beyond Consumer Forum jurisdiction.
T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan CGHS Ltd., 2016 (2) CPJ 273 Taking physical possession without protest ends consumer relationship and privity of contract. Applied to hold that complainants ceased to be consumers after possession without objection.
Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana, 2016 Possession taken without preconditions ends consumer status; complaints filed thereafter are not maintainable. Supported dismissal of complaints as complainants ceased to be consumers post possession.
State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 (5) SCC 121 Consumer complaints barred if filed beyond two years from cause of action unless delay condoned. Applied to find complaints time barred as filed about five years after possession.
V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v. Anita Sena Fernandes, 2011 CTJ 1 (SC) Section 24A mandates dismissal of complaints filed after two years unless sufficient cause for delay is shown. Confirmed strict limitation period and requirement for condonation of delay.
State Of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, 2007 Limitation period once commenced cannot be extended by correspondence unless acknowledgment or part payment. Applied to reject extension of limitation by mere correspondence.
United Bank of India vs. Janata Paradise Hotel and Restaurant, IV (2014) CPJ 383 (NC) Correspondence does not extend limitation period when claim is already barred. Supported dismissal of complaint on limitation grounds.
Vandan Pareshkumar Manghita v. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 (4) CLT 254 Complaint must be filed within two years; correspondence does not extend limitation. Reinforced limitation bar on the complaints.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the complaints collectively due to their common factual and legal matrix. It first addressed whether the Consumer Forum could examine the pricing of flats. Citing authoritative Supreme Court and National Commission judgments, the Court held that pricing is a contractual matter and not subject to Consumer Fora jurisdiction. The brochure clearly stated that final prices could be enhanced due to various factors, and the complainants had accepted the enhanced prices by opting to retain flats rather than seek refunds. Thus, claims challenging pricing were rejected.

Regarding limitation, the Court noted that possession of flats was taken mostly in 2014-2015 without protest. The complaints were filed about five years later, in 2019. The Court applied Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act and Supreme Court precedents mandating dismissal of complaints filed beyond two years from the cause of action unless delay is condoned with sufficient cause shown. No condonation application was filed. Correspondence and letters sent by complainants did not extend limitation. Therefore, the complaints were held barred by limitation.

On whether complainants remained consumers after taking possession without protest, the Court relied on binding precedents holding that taking possession unconditionally and without protest ends the consumer relationship and privity of contract. Hence, complainants ceased to be consumers upon possession, rendering complaints not maintainable.

The Court also considered the opposite parties’ explanation for delay—stay orders and land possession issues—and found no deficiency in service. The complainants’ allegations of fraud and illegal enhancement were not supported in law or fact, especially given the contractual undertakings and acceptance of enhanced costs.

Holding and Implications

All the twenty-three Consumer Complaints are dismissed.

The direct consequence is that the complainants are denied relief on claims of delay, pricing, and excess charges. The dismissal is based on limitation bar, acceptance of enhanced prices, and cessation of consumer status upon taking possession. No new legal precedent is established; the decision applies existing law on limitation, pricing jurisdiction, and consumer status post-possession. The complaints are conclusively disposed of without any order for compensation or refund.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Harinderpal Singh v. The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (Housefed)

    2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

    3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present (CC No.330 of 2019):- For the complainant : Ms. Palak Dev, Advocate For the opposite parties: Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: This order will dispose of above mentioned twenty three (23) Consumer Complaints filed by the different complainants against the same opposite parties/party, 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Scheme of the opposite parties/party. 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 Possession Handing over of Possession Remarks

    1. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, at tentative cost of 9,00,000/-. The opposite parties sought option from the complainant, vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 either to seek refund of the earnest money 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. He did not chose to take refund of the earnest money, but chose to retain the flat with enhanced price, vide undertaking, Ex.OP-3. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1697-C, Floor-III, Category-III and the final cost of the flat was fixed 20,81,000/- Physical Possession of the said flat was delivered to complainant 04.09.2014, 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.331 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-V flat, vide allocation Letter dated Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 25.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, at tentative cost of 5,50,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1646-C, Floor-III, Category-V and the final cost of the flat was fixed 10,41,000/- by the complainant 11.09.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.)

    3. Consumer Complaint No.332 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, at tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. Vide letter dated 12.12.2014, C-12 (colly.), complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.83, Floor- II, Category- II and the final cost of the flat was fixed as 22,46,204/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 05.02.2015, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

    4. Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide allocation letter dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 9,00,000/- .Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1724-B, Floor 2nd, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 08.12.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. 21,36,000/-. As per letter dated 03.12.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the balance amount was duly received by the opposite parties from complainant.

    5. Consumer Complaint No.334 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide allocation Letter dated 24.03.2004 Ex.C-

    2 (colly.) for tentative cost of 9,00,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1696, Floor Ground, Category-III and the final cost of the flat was fixed 23,00,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 23.02.2015, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

    6. Consumer Complaint No.335 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide allocation letter dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 (colly.) for tentative cost of 17,15,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.164, Floor No.III, Category-I and the final cost of the flat was fixed 41,86,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 22.12.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3.

    7. Consumer Complaint No.336 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 (colly.), for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-3 (colly.) and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3 (colly.) Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.74, Floor No.I, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed 30,62,000/-. As per letter dated 19.08.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), balance sale consideration was duly received by the opposite parties from complainant and he was requested to take possession of the flat. complainant has not produced Possession Letter, but in the head note of the complaint, complainant has given the address of the flat, in question, so it is presumed that physical Possession of the said flat has already been taken over by him. -do-

    8. Consumer Complaint No.337 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 (colly.), for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.46, Floor No.I, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 31.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-2 (Colly.). -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. 30,62,000/-.

    9. Consumer Complaint No.338 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Allocation Letter dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 (colly.) for tentative cost of 9,00,000/-. Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-3. Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that she was allotted Flat No.1693-A, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed 22,46,000/-. As per letter dated 13.08.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the balance sale consideration was duly received by the opposite parties from complainant. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 14.08.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (Colly.). -do-

    10. Consumer Complaint No.339 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-III flat, vide Allocation Letter dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 (colly.). Similar option was sought from the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 and the complainant opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide Vide letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.1720-C, 3rd Floor Category-III and the final cost of the flat was fixed 20,81,000/-. As per letter dated 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.330 of 2019 undertaking Ex.OP-3. 29.10.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.), the balance sale consideration was duly received by the opposite parties from complainant.

    11. Consumer Complaint No.341 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Re- Allocation letter dated 15.12.2009, Ex.C-2 (colly.); which was earlier allotted to his father Sh. Kartar Singh Hothi and was transferred in the name of the complainant on his request. Similar option was sought from the father of the complainant by the Housefed vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-4; who had opted for retaining the flat at enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-5. Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.29, Floor Ground, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed 31,37,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 26.12.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-2. -do-

    12. Consumer Complaint No.342 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at Vide letter dated 14.07.2014 , Ex.C-5 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.41, Floor Ground, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 28.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-9. -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C- 31,37,000/-.

    13. Consumer Complaint No.343 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C- Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5 (colly.), the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.28 Floor III, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed 28,38,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 12.09.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-9. -do-

    14. Consumer Complaint No.344 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C- Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.94 Floor 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 29.10.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-9. -do-

    15. Consumer Complaint No.345 of 2019 The complainant Jatinder Kumar was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. The name of complainant Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the complainants were intimated that they were allotted Flat No.48 Floor III, Category-II Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainants 27.11.2014, as per Physical Possession -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Navita W/o Jatinder Kumar was added as co- allottee, as per letter dated 06.10.2005, Ex.C- 2A issued by Housefed. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainants, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C- and the final cost of the flat was fixed 28,38,000/-. Certificate, Ex.OP-9.

    16. Consumer Complaint No.346 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-II flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C- 2, for tentative cost of 12,00,000/-. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C- Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the complainant intimated that she was allotted Flat No.32 Floor III, Category-II and the final cost of the flat was fixed 28,38,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 28.11.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-8. -do-

    17. Consumer Complaint No.347 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allocation Letter dated 22.06.2004, Ex.C-

    2. The said flat was earlier allotted to one Makhan Singh and was transferred in the name of the complainant on his request. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.145 Floor Ground, Category-I and the final cost of the flat was fixed 44,17,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 29.11.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-8. -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 complainant, vide letter dated 27.06.2006, Ex.C- 3; who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost as per endorsement made on that letter and undertaking Ex.OP-6.

    18. Consumer Complaint No.348 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allotment Letter dated 18.03.2016, Ex.C-

    2. The said flat was earlier allotted to one Anju Batra W/o Sh. Harinder Batra and Harinder Batra S/o Mohan Lal was transferred in the name of the complainant on her request. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the earlier allottee, vide letter dated 28.06.2006 as is evident from Para No.8 of the complaint, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost. --- Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the earlier allottees on 15.12.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-2. -do-

    19. Consumer Complaint No.349 of 2019 The complainants were allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allotment Letter dated 07.05.2015, Ex.C-

    2. The said flat was earlier allotted to one Inder Vir Malhan S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Malhan and was transferred in the name of the complainants on his request. Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the earlier allottee was intimated that he was allotted Flat No.150 Floor I Category-I and the final cost of the flat was fixed 46,27,000/-. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the earlier allottee on 15.09.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-2. -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Similar option was sought by Housefed from the earlier allottee, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-4, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-5.

    20. Consumer Complaint No.350 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allotment Letter dated 14.08.2015, Ex.C-

    2. In Para-5 of the complaint, complainant averred that she purchased the said flat, which was share of Kamaljit Kaur, from one Sandeep Singh S/o Sh. Mangal Singh and was transferred in the name of the complainant on his request. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the earlier allottee Kamaljit Kaur, vide letter dated 27.06.2006, Ex.OP-4, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-5. --- Physical Possession of the said flat i.e. flat No.162, Ist Floor, Category-I was taken over by the earlier allottee on 15.12.2014, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-2. -do-

    21. Consumer Complaint No.351 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allotment Letter dated 29.03.2006, Ex.C-

    2. The said flat was earlier allotted to one Gurminder Singh and Simranjeet Singh and was Vide letter dated 14.07.2014, Ex.C-5, the complainant intimated that he was allotted Flat No.173 Floor Ground Category-I Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 05.01.2015, as per Physical Possession -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 transferred in the name of the complainant on their request. Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 28.06.2006, Ex.OP-4, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.OP-5. and the final cost of the flat was fixed 44,17,000/-. Certificate, Ex.C-8.

    22. Consumer Complaint No.352 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Letter of Allocation dated 24.03.2004, Ex.C-

    2 at tentative cost of 17,15,000/- .Similar option was sought by Housefed from the complainant, vide letter dated 27.06.2006 Ex.OP-3, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost, vide undertaking Ex.C-3/Ex.OP-4. Vide letter dated 05.03.2015, Ex.C-5, the complainant intimated that her request, loan 16,75,000/- sanctioned with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 01.11.2014 and she was requested to take possession of the flat. Physical Possession of the said flat was taken over by the complainant 05.03.2015, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-8. -do-

    23. Consumer Complaint No.353 of 2019 The complainant was allotted Category-I flat, vide Re-Allotment Letter dated 20.04.2015, Ex.C-

    3. The said flat was earlier allotted to one Rajesh Puri and Rachna Khanna and was transferred in the name of the complainant on their request. As is evident from Para No.8 of the complaint, similar --- Physical Possession of the said flat i.e. Flat No.177, Floor Ground, Category-I was taken over by the earlier allottee on 04.03.2015, as per Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.OP-2. -do- Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 option was sought by Housefed from the earlier allottees, who opted for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost. 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.330 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.330 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 12,60,731/- (at the rate of 18% per annum on 5,38,774/-) on the amount received by the opposite parties as 8 quarterly instalments from the date of deposit till date of delivery of possession; ii) to pay 2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties; iii) to refund Conveyance Deed charges i.e. 1,76,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum; iv) to refund the excess amount charged on account of revised/enhanced cost of the flat;

    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. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Facts of the Complaint

    3. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant had applied for a flat of Category-III 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.1697-C, 3rd Floor, Category-III, 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.I, according which 60% of the price of the flat was scheduled to be paid between 30.06.2004 to 31.03.2006 in 8 quarterly instalments. 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 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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 was 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 Estate Officer (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 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 Welfare Society approached Commissioner, Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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, as he was 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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 opposite parties sent communication/intimation regarding allotment and possession No.Hfed/TW/4855 dated 15.07.2014 (in continuation of their earlier letter dated 24.03.2004), whereby they demanded the balance payment of 15,44,057/-; 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 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

    4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that the complaint Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 is barred by limitation, as the complainant had already taken the possession of the said unit on 04.09.2004, whereas the present complaint filed on 30.04.2019. PUDA allotted two sites measuring 5.50 acres and 5.49 acres of land to Housefed for construction of flats/dwelling units in Sector 79, Urban Estate, S.A.S. Nagar. Housefed, Punjab framed a scheme and offered Super Deluxe flats of 5 different categories in Sector 79, SAS Nagar, for which booking was opened on 31.01.2014 and closed on 23.02.2004. The said scheme was partially self-financed and the balance payment was to be made in easy instalments. The complainant applied for category-I flat in the Cooperative Housing Complex, Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali and he was issued letter of allocation dated 24.03.2004. However, due to stay order passed by the Honble High Court, PUDA could not deliver possession of the allotted land to the opposite parties. The complainant had already annexed letter dated 07.10.2015, vide which PUDA directed the opposite parties not to further construct the flats. Thus, the Board of Directors of Housefed passed a resolution dated 19.05.2006, giving option to the allottees either to seek the refund of the earnest money deposited by them along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum or send their consent to retain the flat at the enhanced cost, to be intimated during/after the construction of the flats. Such option was sought from the complainant, vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2, who submitted his undertaking Ex.OP-3 for retaining the flat at the enhanced cost. Intimation of draw of flats after completion of the project was given to the complainant, vide letter dated 15.05.2014, stating that the draw of lots Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 would be held on 04.06.2014. In the said draw, the complainant was allotted flat No.1697-C, 3rd Floor, for which intimation was given to him vide letter dated 12.12.2014. Final cost of the flat was determined as 20,81,000/- and the complainant paid 5,34,774/-. Before taking possession, he was required to pay 15,44,057. He paid that amount and took possession of the unit on 04.09.2014. It is settled law that determination of price cannot be gone into by the Consumer Forum. The complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as he purchased the flat for investment purposes. The facts, as narrated in the complaint, do not constitute consumer dispute as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act. The complainants are seeking the relief, which is not covered under the definition of consumer dispute. On merits, it was pleaded that the opposite parties were not at fault in delaying the construction, but it was PUDA who directed them not to undertake any construction due to some litigation pending in the Honble High Court. In response to one D.O. letter dated 07.10.2017, the Estate Officer, GMADA informed that the Engineering Wing of GMADA has reported that due to stay granted by the Honble High Court in the area falling on Sector dividing road between Sectors 79-80, the sewer line could not be laid through. On 11.07.2008, Divisional Engineer (P.H.) informed the Managing Director of Housefed that stay granted by the High Court had not yet been vacated. Housefed again wrote D.O. letter dated 14.07.2009 to the Chief Administrator, GMADA, in reply to which the Estate Officer, GMADA, informed that a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Punjab-cum-Chairman, GMADA and Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Housefed was allowed to raise the construction after leaving khasra No.14/2/25/2/(3K-2M), which was under litigation. The Engineering Wing of GMADA informed, vide letter dated 21.10.2009, that because of the stay orders, there could not be connectivity of the roads and public health services could not be provided, therefore, Housefed could raise the construction at its own risk. Thereafter, tenders were called for executing the work and demarcation of the land was given by GMADA on 22.01.2010. GMADA had given 4 years time to complete the project; which was completed just after little over 4 years after giving demarcation. The allottees were duly informed about the stay orders restraining the Housefed to raise construction. Other similar pleas were raised again and again. It was pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Other allegations of the complaint were also denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs. Evidence of the Parties

    5. In order to prove his claim, the complainant, along with the complaint, filed his own affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15.

    6. The opposite parties, along with their reply, filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Shangari, Officiating Chief Account Officer and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8. Contentions of the Complainant (s)

    7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties have gone through the record carefully. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019

    8. Learned counsel for the complainant 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 Complex in which the flat, in question, was situated 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 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. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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 complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as claimed in the complaint. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the complainant (s) have mentioned following cases in the complaint, but have 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; iv) Gurjinder Singh Gill v. M/s Premium Acres Infrastructure Anr. 2017 (1) CLT 202 (State Commission, UT, Chandigarh);

    v) Pattathu Brothers v. Arunodya Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. 2016 (1) CPR 619 (NC); vi) Haryana Development Authority v. Darsh Kumar 2002 (1) CPJ

    35 (NC); and vii) M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame AIR 1990 SC 630.

    9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that the scheme, in question, was partially self- financed and balance payment was to be made in easy instalments. Due to stay order passed by the Honble High Court, PUDA could not deliver possession of the land to the opposite parties and, thus, the Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Board of Directors of Housefed passed a resolution on 19.05.2006, giving an option to the allottees, either to seek refund of the earnest money deposited by them, along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum or send their consent to retain the flat at the enhanced cost, which was to be intimated during the course of construction/after the construction of flats. The said option was to be exercised by 31.07.2006, failing which the earnest money, along with interest, was to be refunded. The complainant duly exercised the said option, giving undertaking to remain bound to pay the enhanced cost as fixed by the Housefed during the course of construction/after completion. It was further contended that after the vacation of the stay order by the Honble High Court against the acquisition of land by the State of Punjab for PUDA/now GMADA, the possession of the land was delivered to the opposite parties only on 22.01.2010. It was further contended that Housefed had written various letters to GMADA, seeking permission for construction on the land in Sector 79, Mohali. The Estate Officer, GMADA, had informed, vide letter dated 27.03.2008, that the Engineering Wing of GMADA has reported that due to stay granted by the Honble High Court in the area falling in Sector dividing road between Sectors 79-80, the sewer line could not be laid through and, thus, both the sites were not feasible with reference to sewer line and, thus, permission for the construction of flats could not be granted. Engineering Wing of GMADA, vide letter dated 21.10.2009, further informed that because of the stay orders, there could not be connectivity of the roads and public health services and, as such, the Housefed can raise construction at its own risk and cost. Thereafter, Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 tenders were called for executing the project and demarcation of the land was given by GMADA only on 22.01.2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties were allowed to undertake the construction and after completion thereof, the possession was offered. In these circumstances, there was no fault, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Housefed. It was further contended that the final cost of the flat was determined and the complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of 20,81,000/- and after payment of that amount by him, physical possession of the flat was duly delivered to the complainant on 04.09.2014. The complaint, having been filed on 30.04.2019, is barred by limitation. The complainant was duly bound to pay enhanced cost of the flat, in view of the undertaking given by him in this regard. The construction could not be completed within reasonable time, due to operation of stay order passed by the Honble High Court qua the land, in question. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the following cases:

    i) Gujarat Housing Board V. Dataina Atnrit Lal Phul Chand & Ors. III (1993) CPJ 351 (NC); ii) Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank AIR 2007 SC 2198; iii) Premji Bhai Paramod & Ors. v. DDA AIR 1980 SC 739; and iv) Bareilly Development Authority & Anr. v. Vijay Pal Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1076. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 Consideration of Contentions

    10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

    11. In view of the factual matrix involved in all the complaints as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions arise for determination, at the admission stage of the complaints:

    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)?

    12. 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. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019

    13. The opposite parties had fixed the final cost of the flats after completion of the construction and intimated the allottee/complainant to pay the balance amount, as per letter dated 15.07.2014, Ex.C-12 (colly.). Similar letters have been issued to the allottees/complainants in other complaints, as discussed above. The possession of the flat was delivered to the complainant in this case on 04.09.2014, vide Physical Possession Certificate, Ex.C-12 (colly.). Similarly, possession of flats, in question, has already been delivered to the allottees/complainants in other complaints in the last quarter of the year 2014/in the beginning of the year 2015, as discussed above, after the payment of entire balance sale consideration by them.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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: Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019

    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 to refund of such excess with such interest, as may be determined with reference to the facts of the case.

    17. 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.

    18. 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, Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 after duly reading and understanding the terms of the Brochure and allotment letters and it cannot be a matter of deficiency in service.

    19. It is also important to note the opposite parties sought option from the complainant, vide letter dated 29.06.2006, Ex.OP-2 either to seek refund of the earnest money 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. He did not chose to take refund of the earnest money, but chose to retain the flat with enhanced price, vide undertaking, Ex.OP-3. Similar option was also sought from allottees/complainants in other complaints, who gave their option to retain the flats at the enhanced prices, as discussed above. Thus, in view of the specific option given by the allottees/complainants for retaining flats at enhanced costs, they are estopped from raising the issue of enhancement in the cost of the flats.

    20. 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 relief claimed on this account cannot be granted by this Commission. Question No.(II): Whether the complaints are time barred?

    21. Admittedly, the physical possession of the flats have been taken by the complainants in all the complaints in the year 2014/2015, vide Physical Possession Certificates discussed above, 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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 30.04.2019 and 01.05.2019 i.e. after lapse of about 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. However, 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 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.

    22. 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 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.

    23. 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 acknowledgment of liability or part payment. Correspondence does not extend the period of limitation.

    24. 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. 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."

    25. 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.

    26. 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/or first quarter of the year 2015, 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 complainant (s) in all the complaints have not approached this Commission within two years therefrom. In such circumstances, the present complaints are hopelessly barred by limitation. Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 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?

    27. As already observed above, the complainants have already taken possession of their respective flats way back in the year 2014/2015, without raising any kind of objection or protest. They did not raise any 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.

    28. 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 Consumer Complaint No.330 of 2019 taken the possession with open eyes and without any pre- 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.

    29. In view of the ratio of aforesaid authorities, the complainants, after taking possession of their respective flats in the year 2014/2015, 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. So far as the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the complainants are concerned, the same are distinguishable, in view of the law laid down in the above discussed authorities. Conclusion

    30. In view of our above discussion, all the above noted complaints are dismissed. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 27, 2019. (Gurmeet S)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Harinderpal Singh v. The Punjab State Fed...
    (Aug 27, 2019)