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

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:- For the complainants : Sh. A.K. Batra, Advocate For the opposite parties: Ex parte. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of above mentioned two (2) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), as the facts and the questions of law involved in these complaints are the same and both the complaints have been filed against the same opposite parties by the different complainant(s). The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 The complainants, who are son and father, have filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to hand over possession of the unit/retail space immediately; ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount till actual date of delivery of possession; iii) to pay compensation of 3,50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants; and iv) to pay 31,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that being allured by the advertisement given by the opposite parties regarding their under construction Complex known as Bus Terminal-cum- Commercial Complex situated in Sector 57, Mohali, the complainants applied for purchasing a unit, exclusively for the purpose of creating the source of livelihood by way of self-employment by running a Construction Consulting office. The opposite parties offered unit No.32, Tower-C, 2nd Floor, having super area of 738 sq.ft. for basic sale price of 53,32,050/- at the rate of 7,225/- per sq.ft. The complainants paid a total sum of 21,95,550/- to the opposite parties towards the price of that unit, as per details given in Para Nos.4 to 6 of the complaint. Thereafter, letter of allotment dated 09.02.2011 was issued to them regarding the said unit. The opposite parties received various amounts from the complainants, ignoring the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 PAPRA). They failed to complete the construction of the unit within

30 months from the date of compliance i.e. 15.12.2009, as per Clause 1.3.5 of the letter of allotment. No development was started and the work was abandoned by them. The complainants opted for Construction Linked Plan for making payment of instalments of price of the unit. However, on 21.11.2017, opposite party No.3 sent a letter to all the investors, stating that the Company would refund the deposited amount of investors, along with interest and that the investors, who wanted to stay with the Company, would be paid interest at the rate of 8.8% on their deposited amount. Since the construction was not started at the site, so there was no question of the complainants making payment of instalments. The complainants came to know through a public notice published in newspaper that GMADA had served a notice upon the opposite parties for non- completion of the construction and also for cancellation of the agreement. On 06.06.2018, opposite party No.3 sent another letter, requesting extension of time till 30.09.2018 for fulfilling the promises as made in the allotment letter. GMADA had replied to a letter sent by C & C Mohali Junction Buyer Association, stating that GMADA had already issued termination notice on 04.04.2016, but opposite party No.1 had sought extension of time for completion of the project. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties did not appear before this Commission, despite their service and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 04.12.2019. Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 Evidence of the Parties

4. To prove their claim, the complainants filed their joint affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. brochure Ex.C-1, receipt Ex.C-2, demand notice Ex.C-3, cheques Ex.C-4, letter of allotment Ex.C-5, letters Ex.C-6 to 8. Contentions of the Parties

5. I have heard learned counsel for the complainants and have gone through the record carefully.

6. Learned counsel for the complainants has argued on the lines of the complaint. It has been further contended that the complainants purchased the unit, in question, for running Construction Consulting Office for earning their livelihood by way of self- employment. It was further contended that as per clause 1.3.5 of allotment letter, the construction of the unit was to be completed within

30 months from the date of lease period, after obtaining necessary approvals and sanctions. The opposite parties received a sum of 21,95,550/- from the complainants towards the price of the unit, in question, but they failed to complete the project, in question, within the said stipulated period, without disclosing any cogent reasons. No development was carried out at the site of Commercial Complex. The delay in completing the project and delivering possession has been duly admitted by the opposite parties in letter dated 21.11.2017, whereby they offered refund of the amount deposited by the investors and the investors, who wanted to retain the units, were to be awarded interest at the rate of 8.8% on their deposited amount. The opposite parties have neither delivered possession of the unit, in question, nor Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 refunded the amount deposited by them. Thus, they committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, by not honouring their commitments, as per the allotment letter. Accordingly, it has been contended that the complaint be allowed and all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint, be awarded in favour of the complainants. Consideration of Contentions

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainants.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the merits of the present complaints are squarely covered by the earlier verdicts given by this Commission in following cases:

i) Consumer Complaint No.343 of 2016 (Sharanjeet Kaur v. C and C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 02.06.2017; ii) Consumer Complaint No.314 of 2017 (Indu Laroia & Anr. v. C and C Towers Limited & Ors.) decided on 07.11.2017; iii) Consumer Complaint No.99 of 2018 (Dharam Pal Nanda v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 19.07.2018; iv) Consumer Complaint No.825 of 2018 (Harpreet Singh v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 20.02.2019;

v) Consumer Complaint No.183 of 2019 (Darshan Singh v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 15.05.2019; and vi) Consumer Complaint No.930 of 2018 (Ms. Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. C & C Towers Ltd. & Ors.) decided on 04.04.2019. So, I proceed to dispose of the present complaints, in view of the decisions given in the above noted cases. Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019

9. Admittedly, the complainants were allotted unit No.32, Tower-C, C & C Capital, having super area of 738 sq.ft. in the above said project of the opposite parties, vide letter of allotment dated 09.02.2011 Ex.C-5. The basic sale price of unit was 53,32,050/-. The complainants alleged in the compliant that they paid a total sum of 21,95,550/- with the opposite parties towards the price of the unit. However, as per receipts/cheques Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 (coly.) only a sum of 12,54,600/- stood deposited. They alleged that a sum of 9,40,950/- was also deposited by them in cash on 28.12.2010, but no receipt qua the same has been produced on record. As per clause 1.3.5 of the letter of allotment, Ex.C-3, the construction of the unit was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of lease period

i.e. from 15.12.2009 after obtaining all the necessary approvals and sanctions, subject to force majeure circumstances. Therefore, the construction of the unit, in question, was to be completed and possession was to be delivered up to 15.06.2012. The complaint has been filed on 11.10.2019 i.e. more 7 years therefrom. However, the opposite parties failed to complete the construction of project/unit within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause, so as to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainants. It is also relevant to mention that opposite parties wrote letter dated 21.11.2017, Ex.C-6, to the investors, offering refund of the amount deposited by the allottees. It was also mentioned therein that the investors, who wanted to stay invested with the Company, were to be paid interest at the rate of 8.8% per annum on the amount deposited by them, along with other applicable conditions. This letter clearly Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 proves that the opposite parties failed to complete the project within the stipulated timeframe, that is why they offered aforesaid rate of interest on the deposited amount of the investors, including complainants. Letter dated 06.06.2018, Ex.C-7, issued by the opposite parties also proves that they were not having sufficient funds for raising the project and, as such, they requested for extension of time till 30.09.2018 for repayment, as per commitment made vide letter Ex.C-6.

10. In Harpreet Singhs case (supra), it was held as under: It is also relevant to mention that one another allottee sought information under RTI Act from GMADA. GMADA, vide letter dated 29.09.2016, Ex.C-7, supplied the requisite information to her, informing that no licence of construction was granted to the opposite parties, nor any agreement was entered into by the opposite parties with the Government. Still further, as per letter dated 11.03.2016, Ex.C-9, issued by GMADA, the process for cancelling the agreement of the opposite parties had already been initiated, due to non-completion of the project within the stipulated period. It is also mentioned therein that the reason for delay in completing the project was disclosed by the opposite parties to be paucity of funds. In such circumstances, the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time for the completion of the project and delivery of the space/unit in question. This certainly amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. From perusal of observations made by this Commission in the aforesaid case also, it is clear that the opposite parties failed to complete the project within the stipulated period due to paucity of Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 funds with them and GMADA had initiated process for cancellation of their licence.

11. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponents case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. For the sake of repetition, it is relevant to mention that the opposite parties failed to appear before this Commission, despite their service and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte. Thus, all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by them and the evidence led by the complainants stands unrebutted; for which an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. Since the opposite parties are ex parte, so no evidence has come on record, whether they have obtained the requisite approvals and permissions from the competent authorities, before launching their project.

12. Keeping in view the above circumstances, I hold that the opposite parties have failed to comply with the provisions of PAPRA. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such project is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days notice or demand of the Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a project, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a project. However, they failed to comply with Section 3 of the PAPRA.

13. As per Section 5 (Development of land into Colony) of PAPRA, the opposite parties were liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the project, but they failed to produce on record any such valid permission. So, they also violated Section 5 of PAPRA.

14. As per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats/commercial space/unit, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

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

17. Rate of interest on refund of advance money upon cancellation of agreement.- The promoter shall refund full amount collected from the prospective buyers under sub-section (1) of section 6 together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment. The Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainants have made payment of substantial Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 amount to the opposite parties, with the hope to get the possession of the unit within a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that they made false statement of facts about the goods and services

i.e. allotment of unit and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat/space within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builders knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and Rules and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainants to book the unit, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Commission. To get the relief, the complainants have to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainants were at loss of opportunities. In these circumstances, opposite parties are liable to deliver physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 Completion/Occupation Certificate, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants. For delay in delivery of possession, the opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation in the shape of interest at the rate of 12% per anum on the amount deposited by the complainants with them after the stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 15.06.2012 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the unit, as discussed above. Besides this, the complainants are also entitled to suitable litigation expenses and compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by them.

16. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% per anum on the amount deposited by the complainants with them after the stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 15.06.2012 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the unit, as ordered above; and Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 iii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and physical harassment suffered by the complainants to the tune of 30,000/-. iv) The remaining sale consideration payable by the complainants shall be adjusted from above said liability of the opposite parties. Consumer Complaint No.753 of 2019

17. Similarly, in this complaint, complainant was allotted unit bearing No.4 having super area of 774 sq.ft. Tower-C, 12th Floor, in the project/Complex of the opposite parties, vide allotment letter dated 25.08.2010, Ex.C-3(colly.). The Basic Sale Price of the said unit was 38,70,000/-. As per provisional receipt Ex.C-2, a sum of 8,51,400/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties towards the price of the unit, vide cheque No.158384 dated 25.08.2010. Details of this cheque also reflect in Application Form Ex.C-3 (colly). The complainant alleged that a sum of 7,74,000/- was paid by him in cash, but no document to prove this fact has been produced in the complaint. The complainant booked the said unit for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment by running an Industrial Automation & Consulting office. As per Clause 1.3.5 of the allotment letter, construction of the unit was likely to be completed within 30 months from the date of start of lease period i.e. 15.12.2009. Thus, the possession was to be delivered up to 15.06.2012. However, the possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered by the opposite parties to the complainant within the stipulated period. Other averments are similar to that of Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019 Similar prayer has been made, similar documents have been produced and similar arguments have been made in the complaint.

18. Similarly, in this case also, the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission, despite their service and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 04.12.2019.

19. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019, this complaint is allowed and following directions are issued to the opposite parties:

i) to deliver actual and physical possession of the unit, in question, complete in all respects, along with agreed facilities and amenities with Completion/Occupation Certificate, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, without any interest and penalty thereon and to execute the Sale/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainants; ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% per anum on the amount deposited by the complainant with them after the stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 15.06.2012 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the unit, as discussed above; and iii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainants to the tune of 18,000/-. iv) The remaining sale consideration payable by the complainant shall be adjusted from above liability of the opposite parties. Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019

20. The compliance of the orders passed in both the complaints shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT December 19, 2019. (Gurmeet S)