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 : None For OP No.1 : None For OP No.2 : Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them: Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020

i) to provide the basic amenities, as mentioned in Para-9 of the complaint, within time bound manner; ii) to pay 5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and iii) to pay 25,000/- towards litigation expenses. iv) It has also been prayed that any other relief, as may be deemed fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that opposite party No.1 is the Company, who carved out number of booths under the name and style of Hill View Market, Sunny Enclave, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Opposite party No.2 is the Municipal Committee, who is the supervisory authority of every project, being carried out in its limits. The complainant purchased booth No.1108, measuring 0- 1.1/10 marlas (33.33 sq.yd.) situated in Khata No.51/56, Khasra No.8//14/3(6-11) of 11/1310, Share Bakdar 0-101/10 Marla in village Jhungian, Sunny Enclave, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, in resale from Sh. Gagan Chaudhary S/o Sh. Bharat Raj Chaudhary, for a total sale consideration of 17,00,000/-, after taking loan from PNB, exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by way of self-employment. The Sale Deed of that booth was registered in favour of the complainant on 12.02.2019; immediately after which the possession was also delivered. It is mentioned in the Sale Deed that all the applicable charges were already deposited/paid by the seller i.e. Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 opposite party No.1 to the concerned authorities and if anything was due, the same would also be paid by the seller. Extra Development Charges (EDC) of the said booth amounting to 2,38,300/- and Service Tax amounting to 45,300/- had already been paid to opposite party No.1, vide receipts dated 17.08.2015 and 20.10.2015 and No Due Certificate dated 08.01.2019 was also issued in this regard. However, opposite party No.1 has not carried out any development work in the said project. At the time of sale of the booth, opposite party No.1 had assured to provide all the basic amenities, such as permanent electric connection, washrooms for customers and booth owners, streetlights, railings in front of every booth for safety for proper maintenance of market etc. within a period of one month. After purchase of the booth, the complainant started using it as a store for the items of daily use, in order to earn her livelihood. She applied for release of permanent electric connection with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL); which was denied on the ground that the said market floated by opposite party No.1 is not authorized/approved by the competent authority. As a result, the complainant had to shut down the store within a period of one month, after facing huge financial losses, due to lack of basic amenities and electric connection. Other booth owners are also facing same difficulties. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 several times, but it failed to do the needful, on the ground that it cannot provide the amenities for one or two booth owners in the market. Even the streetlights are also not installed in the market and it is very difficult Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 to walk during night time in the market. The market has become a favourite place for druggists in the dark and animals in the day time, as there is no maintenance at all. The complainant suffered huge financial loss, as she is paying heavy interest on the loan amount, with no source of income. Ultimately, she served legal notice dated 14.07.2019 to opposite parties No.1 & 2. Opposite party No.2, vide reply dated 28.08.2019, stated that the developer i.e. opposite party No.1 is responsible to provide the basic amenities. However, opposite party No.1 has not bothered to reply the legal notice. The aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. Defence of the Opposite Parties

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate replies to the complaint.

4. Opposite party No.1, in its reply, raised preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, as defined in the Act, as the Sale Deed of the booth, in question, has already been executed in favour of the complainant on 12.02.2019. She also took possession thereof and carried on business activities therein for a period of over one month and, as such, the relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties came to an end. The complaint is not maintainable, as permanent electric connection is to be applied by the complainant in her own name after depositing the necessary charges with PSPCL. The Sale Deed of booth never guaranteed railing in front of the booths or Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 washroom for customers or booth owners. Such facilities are to be carried out by booth owners themselves and maintenance of booths and space attached to them is also their duty. On merits, facts regarding execution of Sale Deed and taking over of possession of the booth were admitted. Payment of EDC and Service Tax was also not denied. It was pleaded that those charges are Government dues and are credited to the account of the Government. The EDC are taken by GMADA and are deposited with the competent authority and, as such, the answering opposite party has nothing to do with payment of the same. The basic amenities, as alleged in Para-9 of the complaint, were never assured to be provided by it. In fact, the complainant purchased the said booth in resale from Sh. Gagan Chaudhary; who might have assured her about such basic facilities. It was further pleaded that washroom for customers and booth owners stands provided at the spot. The project is duly approved by the Muncipal Council, Kharar. However, the complainant has not produced any document to show that she ever applied for grant of permanent electric connection with PSPCL or that the same was ever denied. Thus, financial loss, if any, suffered by the complainant can never be attributed to basic amenities. It appears that the complainant had suffered financial loss, as she had no business exposure. The requisite amenities already stand provided at the spot, as were required to be provided in the site plan approved by Municipal Council, Kharar. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1. All other allegations levelled in the Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. Opposite party No.2, in its reply, denied that it is the supervisory authority of every project being carried out in its Municipal limit. It was pleaded that opposite party No.2 has supervisory authority only over a project, which has been transferred/handed over to it, after completion thereof i.e. after issuing Completion Certificate by the concerned authority. Regarding taking over the colony/project by Municipal Committee after grant of licence, the builder has to complete the entire construction and provide all the basic amenities in the colony/project. As per Government instructions, the builder has to apply for Completion Certificate with Deputy Director-cum-Competent Authority, Urban Local Bodies, Patiala. After obtaining the Completion Certificate, the builder has to apply with the Municipal/Committee Council for taking over the colony/project. Thereafter, considering the request of the builder, the matter is put up before the Municipal Council/Committee to take over the colony/project after passing a resolution; which has to be sent to the Government for approval. Thereafter, the said colony can be taken over by the concerned Municipal Council/Committee as per rules. It was further pleaded that till the date of filing the reply, the builder had not obtained the Completion Certificate from the competent authority, as per procedure laid down. It was further pleaded that the developer is responsible for providing necessary amenities in the colony. Service of legal notice dated 14.07.2019 and giving reply dated 28.08.2019 were admitted. It Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 was denied that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Evidence of the Parties

6. To prove her claim, the complainant filed her own self attested affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. Sale Deed dated 12.02.2019 Ex.C-1, receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, No Due Certificate dated 08.01.2019 Ex.C-4, legal notice dated 14.07.2019 as well as postal receipts Ex.C-5 and reply dated 28.08.2019 to legal notice Ex.C-6.

7. In support of its defence, opposite party No.1 filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa only. Opposite party no.2 filed affidavit of Sh. Sangeet Kumar, Executive Officer only. Contentions of the Parties

8. I have heard learned counsel for opposite party No.2, as none appeared on behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.1. Opportunity was given to the complainant and opposite party No.1 to file written arguments within 3 days. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant have been submitted, but no written arguments have been submitted on behalf of opposite party No.1 within the given time. I have perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and have gone through the record carefully.

9. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant are on the lines of the complaint. It was further contended Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 that opposite party No.1 is habitual in harassing its customers and is also facing contempt proceedings before the Honble High Court in COCP No.3291/2016 for not providing the basic amenities to the residents of the locality, in question. Various projects have been launched by opposite party No.1, but none of them is complete and lack basic amenities. As per plea of opposite party No.2, the market, in question, is unauthorized and, as such, it is not possible for the complainant to get basic amenities, including electric and water connections. The complainant applied for release of electric connection, vide application dated 05.03.2019, which has been annexed with the written arguments. However, the same has not been issued by PSPCL on the ground that opposite party No.1 is not having any approval of competent authorities qua the said market. Even streetlights have not been installed. Opposite party No.1 has violated various provisions of law, which bar the Real Estate Builders/Developers to advertise and demand money from the prospective buyers, till the requisite permissions are obtained by them. Thus, opposite party No.1 has played fraud and adopted unfair trade practice by not disclosing the fact that the market is not approved by the competent authority. In the Sale Deed dated 12.02.2019, opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant has paid all the expenses/taxes towards the booth, in question and she has not violated any rule/Act of the Government. The photographs produced along with the written arguments clearly prove that there are no streetlights and basic amenities in the market. The deficiency in Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 service on the part of opposite parties has been duly proved and the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 argued on the lines of reply filed on behalf of it. It was further contended that opposite party No.2 is not the supervisory authority of every project. Opposite party No.2 is the supervisory authority of the project, which is transferred to it after completing the same in all respects and Completion Certificate is issued by the competent authority. The market, in question, is neither authorized/approved by the competent authority, nor opposite party No.1 has obtained the Completion Certificate qua the said project. Thus, only opposite party No.1 is responsible for providing basic amenities therein. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and the complaint against it is liable to be dismissed. Consideration of Contentions

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.2.

12. Admittedly, the booth, in question, has been purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 in resale, which was earlier allotted to Sh. Gagan Chaudhary. It is specific case of the complainant that the total sale consideration of the booth, in question, was 17,00,000/- and admittedly, entire sale price of the booth has been paid by the complainant to opposite party No.1, as is evident from No Due Certificate dated 18.01.2019 Ex.C-4. As per receipt dated 17.08.2015 Ex.C-2, EDC of 2,38,300/- was paid and vide receipt Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 dated 20.10.2015, Ex.C-3, Service Tax of 45,300/- was paid to opposite party No.1. Possession of the booth has been delivered to the complainant and Sale Deed, Ex.C-1, has also been executed in favour of the complainant on 12.02.2019. The only grievance of the complainant is that the basic amenities, such as permanent electric connection, washrooms for customers and booth owners, streetlights, railings in front of booths etc., have not been provided by opposite party No.1. The complainant applied for release of permanent electric connection with PSPCL vide application dated 05.03.2019, but the same was not issued on the ground that the market, in question, is not authorized/approved by the competent authority. It needs to be mentioned that Agreement to Sell regarding the booth, in question, has not been produced, either by the complainant or by opposite party No.1. Be that as it may, the fact remains that built-up booth has been sold by opposite party No.1 to the complainant in a market floated by it and entire sale price thereof, including EDC and Service Tax, has already been paid. It is a matter of common knowledge that in a built- up market, consisting of booths/SCOs, basic amenities/public utilities such as washrooms, electricity connection, streetlights, water supply, railings in front of booths etc. are must and without these facilities, the activities in the market cannot be carried out smoothly. The plea of opposite party No.1 that such facilities are to be provided by booth owners or previous allottee is without any force, as it is for the builder/developer to arrange these facilities before selling the booths to Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 individuals and, as such, opposite party No.1 cannot be absolved of its responsibility to provide the same.

13. So far as the plea of opposite party No.1 that after delivery of possession of the booth and execution of Sale Deed Ex.C-1, relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties came to an end, is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that the complainant is not asking for refund of the amount deposited by her towards the sale price of the booth. Rather, she is seeking only providing of basic amenities, as discussed above, for smooth functioning of the activities in her booth, in order to earn her livelihood by way of self-employment. Until and unless the basic facilities are provided in the market/booth, the complainant has continuous cause of action, as opposite party No.1 has not bothered to provide the same, despite repeated requests of the complainant. Furthermore, opposite party No.1 has received a sum of 2,38,300/- towards EDC and 45,300/- towards Service Tax, vide receipts Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 respectively. Besides this, other charges in respect of the booth, in question, were also paid by the complainant, which may not have been mentioned in the Sale Deed or No Due Certificate. Therefore, opposite party No.1 is duty bound for carrying out the development in the market launched by it. Furthermore, opposite party No.1, in support of pleas raised in the reply, has filed self attested affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh Bajwa, Director only. Except this, there is no other evidence led by opposite party No.1 in support of its defence. Thus, there is no evidence on record to prove that the market launched by opposite Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 party No.1 has been got approved/authorized from the competent authority. Furthermore, it is the specific plea of opposite party No.2 that the marked floated by opposite party No.1 is neither approved/authorized by the competent authority, nor it has obtained the Completion Certificate regarding the market, in question, from the competent authority. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that PSPCL denied release of electric connection in the booth, in question, on the ground that the market is not approved, stands proved. Thus, the aforesaid plea of opposite party No.1 is rejected and it, being developer/builder, is duty bound to provide the above discussed basic amenities to the booth/market, in question.

14. It also needs to be mentioned that as per plea of the complainant, she started using the booth, in question, as a store for daily use items. However, for want of electric connection in the booth, she could not run those activities smoothly and ultimately had to shut down the booth. It is a matter of common knowledge that without electricity, such type of activities cannot be run and as the PSPCL denied release of electric connection on the ground of market being unapproved, therefore, the complainant suffered financial loss, besides mental agony and harassment; as she could not earn her livelihood despite spending huge amount on purchase the said booth. In such circumstances, the complainant is entitled to suitable compensation in this regard.

15. So far as the complaint against opposite party No.2 is concerned, it needs to be noticed that opposite party No.2 is Executive Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 Officer, Municipal Committee, Kharar. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded that it is not the the supervisory authority of every project being carried out in its Municipal limit. It is the supervisory authority only of the project, which has been transferred/handed over to it, after completion thereof i.e. after issuing Completion Certificate by the concerned authority. However, opposite party No.1 has not obtained the Completion Certificate from the competent authority.

16. This plea of opposite party No.2 is not tenable, as the area of the market, in question, falls within its jurisdiction and, as such, it has all supervisory rights over the market, in question. Had the market, in question, been fallen outside its limits, then its plea could be accepted, but this is not so in the instant case. As per provisions of Chapter III-A, including Section 50-A, 50-B and Chapter IX, including Sections 169 to 187 and other related provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, opposite party No.2 is duty bound to look into the matter and supervise, whether all the basic amenities in the market in question, which falls under its limits, are provided and if not provided, then to take action against opposite party No.1, in accordance with law.

17. In view of my above discussion, the complaint is allowed and following directions are issued:

i) Opposite party No.1 is directed to provide all the basic amenities such as permanent electric connection, washrooms for customers and booth owners, streetlights, and railings in front of every booth for safety for proper maintenance of market/booth, in Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2020 question, within two months from the receipt of copy of this order; failing which, opposite party No.1 shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the total sale consideration paid by the complainant i.e. 17,00,000/- from the date of execution of Sale Deed Ex.C-1 i.e. 12.02.2019 till providing the aforesaid amenities, on account of financial loss suffered by the complainant for not earning her livelihood due to shutting down the booth for want of basic amenities; and ii) to pay 22,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, including litigation expenses. iii) Opposite party No.2 is directed to supervise, whether the basic amenities in the market, in question, are provided within the stipulated timeframe and if not provided, then to take action against opposite party No.1, in accordance with law.

18. The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of two months of receipt of certified copy of the order. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT June 08, 2020. (Gurmeet S)