Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
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
Advocates
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Case Summary: Consumer Complaint Nos. 287 & 288 of 2019

Factual and Procedural Background

These consolidated orders dispose of two consumer complaints (No. 287 of 2019 and No. 288 of 2019) filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Charan Singh Saini. The Commission heard both matters together because the facts and legal questions were the same and both complaints were filed against the same opposite parties.

Consumer Complaint No. 287 of 2019 (Complainant: Mrs. Ginny Bansal) alleges purchase/transfer of a share in plot No.1277 (200 sq. yards / 8 marlas) under a Full and Final Payment Agreement dated 11.08.2011 and an allotment letter dated 11.08.2011. The allotment letter (Clause 6) contemplated delivery of possession in 24/36 months. The complainant paid Rs.12,40,000 (and later an additional Rs.2,00,000 on 27.07.2015) but possession and committed amenities were not delivered. Reliefs sought included handing over possession, interest (18% p.a. sought), Rs.5,00,000 for mental agony, and litigation costs.

Consumer Complaint No. 288 of 2019 (Complainant: Jagdip Walia) involves a similar factual matrix: allotment of plot No.1378 (provisional), payment(s) totaling Rs.12,40,000 under an allotment dated 24.05.2013, and failure to deliver possession and amenities. Reliefs sought mirrored those in CC No.287 (possession, interest, compensation, costs).

Both complaints progressed through pleadings and affidavits: each complainant filed affidavit(s) and supporting documents (allotment letter(s), payment receipts, webpage/photographs). Opposite parties filed written statements raising preliminary objections (maintainability, limitation, concealment of facts) and affidavits (including affidavit of a Revenue Officer). The Commission heard arguments and delivered a decision on 30.03.2020.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the complainants qualify as "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act despite allegations by opposite parties that the purchases were for resale/investment.
  2. Whether the complaints are barred by limitation or whether a continuous cause of action exists until possession is delivered.
  3. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice by failing to deliver possession and promised amenities within a reasonable time.
  4. Whether the complainants are entitled to interest on amounts deposited, and if so at what rate and from which date.
  5. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses, and the quantum of such compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainants' Arguments

  • They purchased/received transfer of the respective plots (No.1277 and No.1378) and paid substantial amounts (Rs.12,40,000 and in one case additional development charges), relying on allotment letters and a Full and Final Payment Agreement dated 11.08.2011 (for C.C. No.287) and allotment letter dated 24.05.2013 (for C.C. No.288).
  • As per Clause 6 of the allotment letters, possession was to be delivered within approximately 24/36 months; possession has not been delivered even after more than seven years (in CC No.287), and amenities remain incomplete.
  • They complied with payment obligations as demanded; the opposite parties failed to provide possession and committed amenities, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
  • They sought directions for handing over possession, interest on deposited sums, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs.

Opposite Parties' Arguments

  • The complaints are not maintainable and are barred by limitation; there is no cause of action to sue the opposite parties.
  • The complainants concealed true facts and filed complaints to harass the opposite parties.
  • The complainants purchased the plots for resale/investment (not for personal use), so according to the opposite parties they are not entitled to consumer protection.
  • The opposite parties contended they had no concern with amounts paid to the original seller (Ravinderjit Singh) and/or to the Dastkar Co-op. House Building Society and that complainants did not make full and final payments as alleged; therefore, no deficiency in service exists.
  • They asserted that the land was developed as per GMADA norms and approved layout plans and denied entitlement to interest as claimed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS, First Appeal No.1358 of 2016 (decided 29.11.2016) Principle that absence of cogent evidence showing that a purchaser booked property for resale means the purchaser can be considered a 'consumer' for purposes of consumer protection. The Commission relied on this authority (and its reliance upon Kavita Ahuja) to reject the opposite parties' assertion that the complainant purchased the plot for resale; the Commission found no evidence proving commercial/resale intent and therefore treated the complainant as a consumer.
KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS, Consumer Case No.137 of 2010 (decided 12.02.2015) Earlier authority used to support the principle that mere allegation of purchase for resale, without cogent evidence, will not displace characterisation of a buyer as a consumer. Relied upon (through IREO Fiveriver decision) to confirm that the complainant could be regarded as a consumer absent rebuttal evidence.
Raghava Estates Ltd. Vs. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association, SLP (Civil) No.35805 of 2012 (decided 07.12.2012) Principle that cause of action is continuous until delivery of possession; thus limitation may not bar action while possession remains undelivered. The Commission invoked this Supreme Court authority to hold that the complaints were not time-barred because no offer of possession was made and there was a continuous cause of action until possession.
Dr. Navin Khanna & 3 Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd., reported 2016(2) CLT 457 (decided 11.04.2016) Authority holding that unless and until complainants obtain possession, they have a continuous cause of action. The Commission relied upon this decision to reinforce the finding that the complaints were not barred by limitation because possession remained undelivered.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission considered the pleadings, the affidavits and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, and oral submissions of their counsel. The reasoning followed a stepwise approach:

  1. Qualification as consumer / resale contention:

    Opposite parties alleged the complainant purchased the plot for resale/investment. The Commission noted there was no cogent evidence from the opposite parties to substantiate this allegation. Relying on IREO Fiveriver (which itself relied on Kavita Ahuja), the Commission held simple assertions are insufficient and therefore rejected the contention that complainant was not a consumer.

  2. Limitation / continuous cause of action:

    The Commission observed Clause 6 of the allotment letters did not specify an outer date for possession but contemplated development of the whole sector in approximately 2-3 years. The opposite parties could not produce a Completion Certificate or show an offer of possession. Applying the principle in Raghava Estates and the Navin Khanna decision, the Commission concluded the cause of action was continuous until possession was offered or delivered and therefore the complaints were not barred by limitation.

  3. Evidence of payment and transfer:

    The Commission found documentary evidence showing transfer/allotment in complainants' names and receipts for payments: in CC No.287 receipts dated 11.08.2011 (Nos.1056/1057) and a further receipt dated 27.07.2015 for Rs.2,00,000. The opposite parties' plea that complainant purchased in resale from the original society member was rejected because the opposite parties themselves had transferred the plot and issued receipts.

  4. Determination of correct sale consideration:

    The Commission examined Clause 17 of the allotment letter which fixed land cost at Rs.10,500 per sq. yard. For an 8-marla (200 sq. yards) plot that yields a land cost of Rs.21,00,000. As such, the complainant's assertion that the total cost was Rs.15,40,000 was rejected by the Commission on the basis of Clause 17.

  5. Reasonable time for delivery and deficiency:

    Absent an outer date, the Commission treated 'reasonable time' as three years from allotment. For allotment dated 11.08.2011, possession should have been offered by 11.08.2014. The Commission concluded opposite parties received substantial funds (over 50% of sale consideration in each case) and still failed to deliver possession and promised amenities. This failure constituted deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and misrepresentation because the builder knew PAPRA requirements were not complied with and yet induced bookings.

  6. Statutory/regulatory contraventions and interest entitlement:

    The Commission referenced statutory/regulatory requirements under PAPRA (Sections 3, 4, 6 and registration under Section 21(2) as referenced in the opinion) and Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995 (which prescribes 12% p.a. interest on refunds of advance money upon cancellation under certain circumstances). Additionally, Clause 8 of the allotment letter itself provided for interest at 12% p.a. on refund in case of delay or litigation-related delay. On these bases, the Commission held the complainants were entitled to interest at 12% p.a. on the deposited sums from the stipulated date(s) of possession till actual delivery.

  7. Compensation for non-pecuniary loss:

    The Commission observed that misrepresentation and failure to deliver possession caused mental agony, harassment and loss of opportunity to invest elsewhere. Considering the benevolent object of the Consumer Protection Act and precedents awarding compensation for similar builder failures, the Commission found complainants entitled to reasonable compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

  8. Remedies ordered:

    On the basis of the above, the Commission partly allowed both complaints and issued specific directions (see Holding and Implications below). The orders differ in dates from which interest runs (stipulated possession dates differ by allotment date), but the reliefs are parallel in nature.

Holding and Implications

Primary Holding: The Commission partly allowed both Consumer Complaint No.287 of 2019 and Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2019.

Direct Orders and Immediate Consequences

  • Possession:

    The opposite parties are directed to deliver possession of the respective plots (No.1277 and No.1378, each measuring 8 marlas in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali) with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines and other amenities, and provide a Completion Certificate, within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to payment of the balance sale consideration, without levy of interest and penalty on that balance.

  • Interest on deposited amount:

    The opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount of Rs.12,40,000 in each case.

    — In CC No.287 the interest is awarded from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 11.08.2014 until handing over possession.

    — In CC No.288 the interest is awarded from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 25.05.2016 until handing over possession.

  • Compensation:

    The Commission awarded Rs.21,000 to each complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

Broader Implications

The decision enforces the following legal points (as applied in these facts): (i) absence of evidence of commercial/resale intent will not defeat a purchaser's status as a consumer; (ii) where possession has not been offered or delivered, the cause of action is continuous and complaints are not necessarily barred by limitation; (iii) statutory/regulatory provisions (PAPRA and related Rules) and express contractual clauses (e.g., Clause 8 providing for 12% interest) can ground entitlement to interest and compensation where promoters fail to deliver possession; and (iv) contractual representations and promoters' non-compliance with statutory requirements can amount to misrepresentation and deficiency in service.

The order grants reliefs specific to the parties before the Commission. The opinion does not state that it is laying down any novel precedent beyond applying and relying upon existing authorities; therefore the ruling's direct effect is to provide the specified reliefs to the complainants in these matters.

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

    Ginny Bansal v. M/s Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

    FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH. 1. Consumer Complaint No.287 of 2019 Date of Institution : 10.04.2019 Date of Reserve : 13.02.2020 Date of Decision : 30.03.2020 Mrs.Ginny Bansal W/o Sh.Amit Bansal, R/o 3122, ATS One Hemlet, Sector 104, Noida-201304, Uttar Pradesh. ginnybansal@gmail.com. ..Complainant Versus

    1. M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Sector 86, Adjacent to Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Ph.0172-5099955, 5099966, through its parties / Authorized Representatives / Managing Director. Email ID: plpmohali@yahoo.com

    2. Charan Singh Saini, Director, M/s Preet Land & Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Resident of House No.1004, Sunny Enclave, Sector -125, T.C. Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali- 140301 Pb. Email ID : plpmohali@yahoo.com .Opposite Parties 2. Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2019 Date of Institution : 10.04.2019 Date of Reserve : 13.02.2020 Date of Decision : 30.03.2020 Jagdip Walia S/o Late Sh.Manmohan Singh, R/o H.No.602, Mamta Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur (Punjab). ginnybansal@gmail.com ..Complainant Versus

    1. M/s Preet Land Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Sector 86, Adjacent to Sector 79, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Ph.0172-5099955, 5099966, through its parties / Authorized Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 2 Representatives / Managing Director. Email ID: plpmohali@yahoo.com

    2. Charan Singh Saini, Director, M/s Preet Land & Promoters & Developers Private Limited, Resident of House No.1004, Sunny Enclave, Sector -125, T.C. Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali- 140301 Pb. Email ID : plpmohali@yahoo.com .Opposite Parties Consumer Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum:- Honble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present (CC No.287 of 2019):- For the complainant : Sh.Armaan Bakshi, Advocate for Sh.Arjun Sheoran, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh.K.S.Lang, Advocate RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL, MEMBER: This order will dispose of above mentioned two 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 complainants. The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.287 of 2019. Facts of the Complaint

    2. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, C.P. Act) for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 3

    i) to hand over the possession of the residential plot bearing No.1277, Dasktkar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Preet City, Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab complete in all respects immediately and with all amenities and facilities as agreed to by the opposite parties in its brochure as well as in the allotment letter and full and final payment agreement dated 11.08.2011 to the complainant and execute all the necessary and required documents including but not limited to the Sale Deed of the Plot in favour of the complainant herein; ii) to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.12,40,000.00 being the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties with effect from 24/36 months from the date of the full and final payment agreement dated 11.08.2011, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on any future payment made by the complainant to the opposite parties has part of the sale consideration from the date of said payment, till the date of the actual delivery of the possession of the residential plot complete in all respects and with all amenities and facilities as agreed to by the opposite parties in its brochure as well as in the full and final payment agreement dated 11.08.2011. iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment; Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 4 iv) to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation; and

    v) any other relief which this Commission may deem fit be granted. Facts of the Complaint:

    3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased the share of plot No.1277, measuring 200 sq. yards, Dastkar Coop. House Building Society Ltd., Preet Land, Sector -86, SAS Nagar, Mohali from Ravinder Singh Brar in a full and final agreement dated 11.08.2011. A payment of Rs.12,40,000/- was paid to the said Ravinder Singh Brar. Thereafter, the complainant was allotted a residential plot vide Allotment Letter No.PLP/PLP-1056/331 dated 11.08.2011 after payment of Rs.12,40,000/- by way of two cheques. As per clause 6 of the Allotment Letter, the lawful possession was to be delivered to the complainant within 24/36 months. The total sale consideration for purchase of the residential plot was fixed as Rs.15,40,000/- including Rs.3,00,000/- as development charges. The complainant as per payment plan and in terms of the demand raised by opposite party No.1 paid a sum of Rs.14,40,000/-. The last payment of development charges was to be paid upon receipt of the final notice of possession and after the final payment the sale deed of the said residential plot was required to be executed by opposite party No.1. However, despite the written commitments made in the allotment letter, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the said residential plot. It has been further averred that the complainant has Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 5 complied with all the obligations on her part. While visiting the site, the complainant came to know that even the basic amenities as committed i.e community hall, covered stilt parking, Yoga Centre, proper swimming pool etc. are not ready and opposite parties are not in a position to give the possession of the residential plot. It has been further averred that the complainant to make the timely payments took loan from their near ones. The agreement was prepared with one sided conditions upon the complainant. Even after lapse of more than seven years from the date of execution of the agreement dated 11.08.2011 the possession of the said residential plot is still not handed over by the opposite parties to the complainant. The opposite parties have also violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed by the complainant seeking the above mentioned reliefs. Defence of the Opposite parties

    4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable. Complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has concealed the true facts from this Honble Court. The complainant filed the present complaint only to harass the answering opposite parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the plot for selling and to gain profits. Further, submitted that the complainant is member of the Akash Co-op. Society. The Dastkar Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 6 Co-op House Building Society is in existence and functioning from its separate office and having separate office. The opposite parties have no concern with the amount which was paid by the complainant to the original seller Ravinderjit Singh and to Dastkar Co-op. House Building Society. It was further contended that the complainant is not entitled to any interest as alleged. Rest all the other averments as averred by the complainant in her complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. Evidence of the Parties

    5. To prove her case, the complainant has filed her affidavit dated 09.04.2019 along with photocopies of the documents i.e. allotment letter dated 11.08.2011 as Annexure C-1, Full and Final Payment Agreement dated 11.08.2011 as Annexure C-2, Receipt dated 11.08.2011 as Annexure C-3, Receipts dated 11.08.2011 and 27.07.2015 as Annexure C-4 (colly), copy of Webpage of the opposite parties as Ex.C-5 and photographs as Annexure A-1(colly).

    6. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed the affidavit of Sh.Raghubir Singh, Revenue Officer.

    7. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant denying all the averments stated in the written statement by reiterating the averments as averred by the complainant in her complaint and prayed to allow the complaint by granting all the reliefs as averred by the complainant in her complaint. Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 7 Contentions of the Parties

    8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the complaint, written statement and evidences available on the record.

    9. Learned proxy counsel for the complainant argued on the similar lines as averred in the complaint. An allotment letter dated 11.08.2011 was issued by the opposite parties wherein plot No.1277, measuring 8 Marla approx. in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali was allotted to the complainant on transfer from one Ravinderjit Singh. As per Clause 6 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 24/36 months. The total sale consideration of said residential plot was fixed as Rs.15,40,000/-. Out of that Rs.14,40,000/- i.e. Rs.12,40,000/- as sale consideration and Rs.2,00,000/- on account of development charges, has already been deposited but still the opposite parties have failed to hand over the possession to the complainant even after the lapse of seven years from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The opposite parties have also failed to complete the basic amenities as committed. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Finally, learned counsel prayed to allow the complaint by granting all the reliefs as prayed.

    10. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant has not purchased the said property for his personal use but purchased it for investment purpose. The complaint is barred by limitation and there is no Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 8 cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering opposite parties. Further argued that the land is developed as per the norms of GMADA and approved layout plans. The complainant has not given the full and final payment. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties. The complaint is without merit and it be dismissed with costs. Consideration of the Contentions

    11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

    12. Firstly, we would like to deal with the objection of the opposite parties that the complainant has purchased the property for resale purpose. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties to prove that the complainant is indulging in sale purchase of property for commercial purpose or investment purposes and simple assertion in this regard in the reply of the opposite parties is not sufficient to prove this fact. Honble National Commission in M/s IREO FIVERIVER PVT. LTD. v. SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA & OTHERS First Appeal No.1358 of 2016, decided on 29.11.2016, while relying upon its earlier decision in KAVITA AHUJA & OTHERS v. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS Consumer Case No.137 of 2010, decided on 12.02.2015, held the complainants as consumers, observing that that the appellant failed to show any cogent evidence, which may indicate that the respondents/complainants or any of them has been indulging in sale Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 9 purchase of the properties or that the complainants or any one of them had booked the subject plots in the development project undertaken by the appellant with the intention to sell the plot on subsequent date for earning profit. In the instant case also, as already said above, there is no rebuttal evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the complainant indulged in sale purchase of properties and that she purchased the unit, in question, for further sale or for earning profits. Accordingly, the above said objection/contention of the opposite parties is rejected.

    13. Secondly, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation. Vide allotment letter dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure C-1), the plot bearing No.T-1277, measuring 8 Marla, was allotted to the complainant. As per clause 6 of the allotment letter, the possession was to be offered after development of the whole sector, which might take approximately 2-3 years but it is nowhere mentioned in the reply that opposite parties have developed / completed the project. During arguments, the counsel for the opposite parties was asked to show any Completion Certificate of the project which he could not produce. Moreover, no offer of possession has been given to the complainant, as such, there is a continuous cause of action and we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is not barred by limitation. Further, we are fortified by the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35805 of 2012, decided on 07.12.2012 titled as Raghava Estates Ltd. Vs. Vishnupuram Colony Welfare Association,. The Honble Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 10 National Commission has also relied upon the law laid down in the above said judgment in the case reported in 2016(2) CLT 457 Dr.Navin Khanna & 3 Ors. Vs. Unitech Reliable Project Pvt. Ltd., decided on 11.04.2016 has held that unless and until the complainants get possession of the flats, they have got continuous cause of action..

    14. Now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, as per the Full and Final Payment Agreement dated 11.08.2011, Annexure C-2 the complainant purchased a share of a residential plot bearing No.1277, measuring 8 marlas in Preet Land, Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali, from one Sh.Ravinder Singh Brar and paid a sum of Rs.12,40,000/- to him vide receipt, Annexure C-3. On the same day

    i.e. 11.08.2011, the opposite parties issued receipts bearing No.1056 and 1057, dated 11.08.2011 [Annexure C-4 (colly)], towards payment of above Rs.12,40,000/-, and also an allotment letter was issued in the name of the complainant wherein the balance amount towards development charges is shown as Rs.3,00,000/- which depicts that the plot allotted to previous allottee has been transferred in the name of complainant along with the receipt of payments. The complainant further vide receipt No.4535 dated 27.07.2015 has deposited Rs.2,00,000/- towards development charges.

    15. The plea raised by the opposite parties that the complainant purchased the plot in resale from the original member of Dastkar Society does not stand good as the opposite parties have already transferred the plot in the name of the complainant and also issued Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 11 receipts for the payments amounting to Rs.12,40,000/- vide Annexure C-4(colly), on transfer of the plot, in question.

    16. The complainant, in her complaint, has alleged that the total sale consideration of the plot was fixed as Rs.15,40,000/-. However, as per Clause 17 of the Allotment Letter, the cost of the land was fixed as Rs.10,500/- per sq. yards. The complainant was allotted a plot measuring 8 Marla i.e. 200 sq. yards, accordingly the total amount comes to Rs.21,00,000/-. Clause 17 of the Allotment Letter is reproduced hereunder:

    17. PLC Charges @10% on corner plot and 5% on park facing will be extra considering the cost of the land at the rate of Rs.10,500/- per sq. yard.

    17. In view of the above clause, the cost of land is considered to be as Rs.21,00,000/- and against that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,40,000/-. Accordingly, the argument of the complainant with regard to the total cost of the plot is Rs.15,40,000/- is hereby rejected.

    18. Further, as per Clause 6 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be delivered after development of the whole sector which may take approximately 2-3 years. However, no specific date has been mentioned by the opposite parties in their written statement as well as in the Allotment Letter. In case no outer date is given in the allotment letter, then it could be taken as a reasonable time, which can be 3 years and in case opposite parties have issued allotment letter on 11.08.2011 then the plot should have been developed and its possession should have been offered Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 12 to the complainant within a period of 3 years, i.e. upto 11.08.2014. The complainant by way of this complaint prayed for possession, however, the opposite parties despite receiving more than 50 per cent amount of the sale consideration failed to deliver the possession even after lapse of seven years which is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation and interest on the amount deposited.

    19. To initiate any project, the opposite parties are required to follow the basic approvals as laid down in Section 3, 4 and 6 of the PAPRA. According to these provisions, the opposite parties shall not issue any advertisement, prospectus or offer of sale of any apartment/plot or invite application till it completes the above referred formalities that it has been registered as a Promoter under Section 21(2) of the Act, disclose the area of plots, price payable, layout plan of validity of the license issued by the Competent Authority. Moreover, the opposite parties under Section 6 maximum 25% of the price can be accepted before issuing the Allotment Letter / Agreement and in the said Allotment Letter/Agreement, it should be clearly mentioned as to when the possession shall be delivered. In this case, a substantial amount of Rs.14,40,000/- was received but still the possession has not been delivered to the complainant. The opposite parties contravened the provisions of PAPRA for not delivering the possession despite receiving a hefty amount towards the cost of the plot.

    20. The C.P. Act came into being in the year 1986. It is one of Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 13 the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumer from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. There is not an iota of evidence led by the opposite parties to rebut the averments made in the complaint by way of authenticated documentary evidence. The complainant has made payment of substantial amount to the opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the plot in a reasonable time. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services

    i.e. allotment of land and construction in a stipulated period and ultimate delivery of possession. 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 her money with the opposite parties, she would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The complainant has suffered loss, as discussed above. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot 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 the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that it had not complied with the provisions of the PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder and would not be able to deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresenting induced the complainant to book the plot, due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony and Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 14 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 amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties in trust of complainant and it should be used for the purpose of development of the project site, as mentioned in Section 9 of PAPRA. 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 such circumstances, ever increasing cost of construction and the damages for loss of opportunities caused which resulted in injury to the complainant, is also required to be taken into consideration for awarding compensation. In addition to that she is also entitled to compensation for the harassment, mental agony and wasting of time and money in litigation for redressal of grievance suffered by her on account of the betrayal by the opposite parties in shattering their hope of getting the plot by waiting for all this period.

    21. As per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995, framed under Section 45 of 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 Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 15 rate of twelve per cent per annum payable from the date of receipt of amount so collected till the date of re-payment.

    22. Further as per condition No. 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure C-1), the opposite parties themselves agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on account of delay. The relevant clause 8 of the allotment letter is reproduced here under:-

    8. During the demarcation or at any other stage after allotment, if the area of the said plot is found to be under litigation or development could not be done due to litigation, or possession is delayed due to litigation or any other reason then in that case you will have to either wait for the possession of the plot till some decision is taken by the competent authority and the development works are completed in the pocket in which the plot falls or can seek refund of the amount paid upto that date with an interest of 12% per annum. In either case, you shall not have any right to claim alternative plot.

    23. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the following directions are issued to the opposite parties:-

    i) to deliver the possession of the plot bearing No.1277, measuring 8 Marlas, as per allotment letter, in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc. complete in all respects along with Completion Certificate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, subject to payment of balance sale consideration, without interest and penalty. Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 16 ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.12,40,000/-, as prayed, from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 11.08.2014 till handing over the possession as per relief (i) iii) to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. Consumer Complaint No.288 of 2019

    24. Similarly in this case the complainant was allotted a plot bearing No.1378 (Provisional), measuring 8 Marla in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali. It has been further averred that against the total sale consideration the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.12,40,000/-. Despite receiving the substantial amount, the opposite parties have failed to deliver the possession to the complainant. Rest all the averments are same as averred by the complainant in Consumer Complaint No.287 of 2019 and sought the following directions to the opposite parties:

    i) to hand over the possession of the residential plot bearing No.1378, Preet City, Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab complete in all respects immediately and with all amenities and facilities as agreed to by the opposite parties in its brochure as well as in the Allotment Letter dated 24.05.2013 to the complainant and execute all the necessary and required documents including but not limited to the Sale Deed of the Plot in favour of the complainant herein; Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 17 ii) to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the sum of Rs.12,40,000.00 being the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties with effect from 24.05.2013 till the date of actual delivery of the possession of the residential plot complete in all respects and with all amenities and facilities as agreed to by the opposite parties in its brochure as well as in the Allotment Letter dated 24.05.2018. iii) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment; iv) to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation; and

    v) any other relief which this Commission may deem fit be granted.

    25. Upon notice opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements on the similar lines as detailed in C.C. No.287 of 2019.

    26. Rejoinder to the written statement has been filed by the complainant on the similar lines as detailed in C.C. No.287 of 2019 and denied all the objections raised by the opposite parties in their complaint and prayed for allow the complaint.

    27. The complainant in support of his averments has filed his affidavit along with photocopies of documents i.e. Allotment letter dated 24.05.2013 as Annexure C-1, Receipts dated 24.05.2013 as Annexure C-2(colly), Webpage of the Company as Annexure C-3, photographs as Annexure A-1(colly). Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 18

    28. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed the affidavit of Sh.Raghubir Singh, Revenue Officer along with the photocopies of documents i.e. Affidavit of Narinder Singh as Annexure OP-1, Affidavit of Jagdip Walia as Annexure OP-2.

    29. Learned counsel for both the sides raised similar arguments as have been raised by them in CC No.287 of 2019.

    30. In this complaint the total sale consideration is considered to be as Rs.21,00,000/- as per Clause 17 of the Allotment Letter. Against which, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.12,40,000/- vide receipts No.2601 and 2602 dated 24.05.2013 [(Annexure C-2(colly)]. In this case also, no specific date for handing over the possession has been given. Therefore, a reasonable time is taken, which can be 3 years and in case opposite parties have issued allotment letter on 24.05.2013 then the plot should have been developed and its possession should have been offered to the complainant within a period of 3 years, i.e. upto 24.05.2016. So far as Annexure OP-2 is concerned, the said affidavit was given by the complainant when the project was transferred to the opposite parties and the complainant gave his undertaking by way of this affidavit that he will pay the balance sale consideration as and when demanded by the opposite parties. No document has been placed on record by the opposite parties wherein they demanded any amount from the complainant which he did not pay. Rest of the findings are similar as recorded in CC No.287 of 2019. Accordingly, this complaint is also partly allowed in the same terms. The following directions are issued to the opposite parties:- Consumer Complaint No 287 of 2019 19

    (i) to deliver the possession of the plot bearing No.1378, measuring 8 Marlas, as per allotment letter, in Sector 86, SAS Nagar, Mohali with developed roads, sewer, water and electricity lines etc. complete in all respects along with Completion Certificate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, subject to balance sale consideration, without interest and penalty. ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount i.e. Rs.12,40,000/-, as prayed, from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 25.05.2016 till handing over the possession as per relief (i) iii) to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

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

    Comments

    Ginny Bansal v. M/s Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
    (Mar 30, 2020)