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

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:- For the complainant : Shri Rajiv K. Bhatia, Advocate. For the opposite parties: Ex parte. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT: The complainant, Sukhjinder Singh Behl, who is a practicing lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and belongs to Ahmedgarh, has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act), for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

i) to handover the possession of the plot in question complete in all respects along with all basic amenities like roads, sewerage, electricity, rain water harvesting, club house, boundary wall, street lighting and other amenities as promised by them along with completion certificate, OC and other statutory approvals; ii) in the alternative to refund the entire amount of 34,84,150/- along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the different dates of deposits of different amounts till realization; iii) to pay 5,00,000/-, as compensation, for harassment, mental torture, unfair trade practice and financial loss Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 suffered by the complainant and for facing social humiliation; and iv) to pay 55,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the complaint:

2. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is married at Ludhiana and most of his close relatives from his paternal as well as maternal side are also residing in Ludhiana and, as such, he was desirous to buy plot for himself and his family for construction of a residential house for their stay in the vicinity of Sidhwan Canal Road, Ludhiana. Opposite parties being colonizer and developer represented the complainant that they are in process of developing, constructing, building and finishing a residential township known as Ireo Waterfront consisting of high end independent built up floors/flats, plots, towers, lake, recreational facilities, landscaped gardens and such other utilities in the area of Village Devatwal, Dakha-I and II, Eissewal, Gahour and Birmi, Sub Tehsil Mullanpur Dakha, Sidhwan Canal Road, Ludhiana. Opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 were the active Directors of opposite party No.1. On the representation and allurement made by the opposite parties the complainant booked one plot bearing No.D044 Type K measuring 203.43 square yards and was duly endorsed by the opposite parties in his favour on 21.5.2012, which was originally allotted to one Ms. Sheetu Bhatia, who had just paid 15% of BSP to the opposite parties and rest of the sale consideration was to be paid by the complainant directly to opposite party No.1. The total basic Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 sale price of the said plot was 36,61,740/-. The Floor Buyers Agreement was executed between opposite party No.1 and original allottee, which was duly endorsed in favour of the complainant and terms and conditions thereof are binding upon the complainant and opposite parties. It is further averred that as per clause 11.1 of the said Agreement, opposite party No.1 was bound to hand over the possession of developed plot within the period of 24 months along with grace period of 6 months. The date of Agreement was 14.11.2011 and, as such, the possession of the fully developed plot was to be delivered till 14.05.2014. Till the date of filing of the complaint the complainant had paid 34,84,150/- to the opposite parties as per their demand but in-spite of lapse of almost 5 years from the promised date of delivery of possession, there is no sign of any progress or development at project site. The opposite parties are not in a position to handover the possession of the fully developed plot in all respects along with all basic amenities as promised by them and completion certificate, OC and other statutory approvals despite receiving 95% of the sale consideration. The complainant visited the project site and handed over several letters to the opposite parties personally but nothing has been done in the matter. Recently the complainant visited the project site and found that the development is standstill; rather, the project is not even being maintained and basic amenities as promised are missing. Thus, the opposite parties violated various statutory provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 PAPRA). The complainant annexed with the complaint recent photographs of the site as Ex.C-14 (colly). The complainant also served a legal notice but no response or reply to the same has ever been given by the opposite parties. Due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered a great mental torture and harassment as well as financial loss. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to them.

3. Notices were issued to opposite parties for 2.12.2019. Opposite party No.1 was served but none appeared on its behalf and was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 2.12.2019. Notices sent to opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 were received back with the report left. Thereafter opposite parties Nos.2 to 4 were served by way of publication in The Times of India dated 19.12.2019. However, they did not put in appearance despite service and were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 30.1.2020. Evidence of the complainant:

4. To prove his complaint, the complainant annexed with the complaint his own affidavit dated 17.10.2019 along with documents

i.e. copy of allotment letter dated 14.11.2011 as Ex.C-1 and copies of payment receipts as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C8, copy of Plot Buyer Agreement dated 9.2.2012 as Ex.C-9, copies of letters dated 9.1.2016 and 20.4.2016 as Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, copies of reminders dated 17.2.2017 and 25.5.2018 as Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13, Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 photographs as Ex.C-14, copy of legal notice dated 4.4.2019 along with postal receipt as Ex.C-15 and copy of order dated 16.10.2019 as Ex.C-16. Contentions of the complainant:

5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant, as the opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex parte and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant purchased a plot bearing No.D044, Type K, measuring 203.43 square yards in the said project of the opposite parties in resale, which was originally allotted to one Ms. Sheetu Bhatia for a total basic sale price of 36,61,740/-. The said original allottee had paid 15% of the BSP and thereafter the said plot was endorsed in favour of the complainant after payment of margin money to said allottee. Plot Buyers Agreement dated 9.2.2012 was entered into between the original allottee and the opposite parties, Ex.C-9, and after the purchase of the same by the complainant an endorsement was made in his favour. It has further been contended that the complainant paid an amount of 34,84,150/- to the opposite parties on various dates against receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8. As per clause 11.1 of the Agreement, Ex.C-9, opposite parties proposed to make the offer of conveyance of the said plot to the allottee within a period 30 months including 6 months grace period. The Agreement was executed on 9.2.2012 and, as such, the possession was to be Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 delivered upto 8.8.2014. The complaint was filed on 21.10.2019 and more than five years had already lapsed from the committed date of delivery of possession but in spite of that the opposite parties failed to develop the plot and deliver its possession. The project of the opposite parties is still incomplete and they failed to offer the possession of the plot in question, despite receipt of 95% amount. The complainant visited the opposite parties a number of times and also sent letters/reminders either to deliver the possession of the fully developed plot to him or to refund the amount paid by him along with interest but nothing has been done. The opposite parties have not obtained Completion Certificate and other permissions from the concerned competent authorities and, as such, have violated various provisions of the PAPRA. The complainant even served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence the opposite parties are not only deficient in rendering service to the complainant but also adopted unfair trade practice. He prayed that the complaint may be allowed as prayed for. Consideration of Contentions

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

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

i) Consumer Complaint No.212 of 2014 (Satnam Singh vs. IREO Waterfront & Ors.) decided on 19.02.2018; Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 ii) Consumer Complaint No.274 of 2017 (Rachhpal Singh & others vs. Ireo Waterfron Private Limited) decided on 24.04.2018; iii) Consumer Complaint No.446 of 2019 (Amardeep Singh and another v. M/s Ireo Waterfron Private Limited and others) decided on 19.12.2019. So, we proceed to dispose of this complaint, in view of the decisions given in the above noted cases.

9. Originally the plot in question was allotted to original allottee Sheetu Bhatia, vide Provisional Allotment Letter dated 14.11.2011 on the payment of 15% of the BSP by her. Plot Buyers Agreement was also executed between the said original allottee and the opposite parties on 9.2.2012, Ex.C-9. The complainant purchased the said plot in resale from the original allottee after making the payment of the amount deposited by her with the opposite parties and got endorsements on the Provisional Allotment Letter, Plot Buyer Agreement and the receipts, vide which she paid the amounts to the opposite parties. There are payment receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C8. A perusal of the same reveals that some of the payments have been made by the original allottee and some of the payments have been made by the complainant. Though the complainant claimed to have deposited 34,84,150/- and sought refund of the same in the alternative prayer but on adding the amounts of receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 placed on record by the complainant the total amount comes to 32,84,150/-. No other receipt or evidence has Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 been produced by the complainant regarding making of any payment over and above that amount. As per clause 11.1 of the agreement, the opposite parties proposed to offer the possession of the said plot within 24 months from the date of agreement. Further opposite parties are additionally entitled to a period of 180 days (grace period) after the expiry of said commitment period to deliver the possession. As per the Plot Buyer Agreement, the opposite parties were to offer the possession of the said plot within 30 months (including grace period) from the date of agreement, which was executed on 9.2.2012 upto 8.8.2014. The complaint was filed on 21.10.2019 and more than five years had already expired from the committed date of delivery of the possession till the date of filing of the complaint. The main plea of complainant is that till date the opposite parties have not offered the possession of plot to him despite receipt of 95% of the amount towards its sale price and various requests made by him for delivery of the plot. There is not even an iota of sign of development at the project and the same is lying abandoned and as such the opposite parties also violated the provisions of PAPRA. In support of his version the complainant placed on record photographs Ex.C-14 (colly) and a perusal of the same reveals that no development work is being carried out at the site. The complainant sent a number of letters/reminders to the opposite parties but nothing has been done in the matter. He even served legal notice upon the opposite parties but to no avail. Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019

10. We have perused the evidence, which is unrebutted on the record, as the opposite parties are ex-parte in this case. 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 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 complainant 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.

11. Keeping in view the above circumstances, we hold that opposite parties have also failed to comply with the various 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 Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days notice or demand of the 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.

12. 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.

13. 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, they also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.

14. The C.P. 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 complainant has made payment of substantial amount to opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the fully developed plot in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that they made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 development of the plot 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 complainant. Had the complainant not invested his money with them, he would have invested the same elsewhere. 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. The complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely to get possession of the plot booked. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that 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 complainant to book the plot, due to which the complainant has 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 complainant 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 complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle. As such, the complainant was at loss of opportunities. In these circumstances, the complainant is held entitled to possession Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 of the fully developed plot in question along with completion certificate from the competent authority and compensation at the rate of 50/- per square yard of the area of the plot per month after the expiry of the committed date of delivery of possession i.e. 9.8.2014 till the delivery of actual possession as per clause 11.2 of the Plot Buyers Agreement dated 9.2.2012, Ex.C-9 and litigation expenses. In case the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession of the above said plot, the opposite parties shall return the whole amount deposited by the complainant along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization, as per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995.

15. In view of our above discussion, this complaint is allowed and the following directions are issued to opposite parties:- 1(i) to deliver vacant physical possession of the fully developed plot along with Completion Certificate from the concerned competent authorities and all the promised amenities subject to the payment of balance outstanding amount towards the price thereof, if any, by the complainant without any interest or penal interest; Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 1(ii) to execute the sale/conveyance deed and get the same registered in the name of the complainant for which the expenses shall be borne by the complainant; 1(iii) to pay compensation at the rate of 50/- per square yard of the area of the plot per month after the expiry of the committed date of delivery of possession i.e. 9.8.2014 till the date of delivery of actual possession of the fully developed plot in question; and 1(iv) to pay 50,000/-, as composite compensation, for mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation costs and also expenses incurred on publication of notice in the newspaper.

16. The opposite parties shall adjust the amount of compensation and litigation costs, as directed at 1(iii) and 1(iv) towards the amount payable by the complainant, if any, towards the price of the plot in question. In case opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession, as ordered above, then in the alternative following directions are issued to them:- 2(i) to refund the amount of 32,84,150/- along with compensation for causing financial loss and depriving the complainant of the use of the said amount during the period the same remained with the opposite parties at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the different Consumer Complaint No.770 of 2019 dates of deposits of different amounts till the date of actual payment; and 2(ii) to pay 50,000/-, as composite compensation, on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant including litigation costs and expenses on publication of notice in the newspaper.