Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CC/890/2019

Attorney(S)

Acts

Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 PAPRA,
SECTION 17 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986
Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA)
Rule 95 of Chapter 9 of AWHO Rules, Ex.R-1,
Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i)
Haryana Cooperative Societies Act.
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860
Rule 74 of AWHO Rules,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Consumer Complaints against Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO)

Factual and Procedural Background

This consolidated order disposes of six (6) consumer complaints filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the same opposite parties (Army Welfare Housing Organization - AWHO and others). The summary and findings are primarily taken from Consumer Complaint No. 890 of 2019, which the Court treated as representative because similar questions of fact and law arose in the other matters.

Broad factual matrix (as pleaded by the representative complainant in CC No.890/2019): AWHO launched a project at Sector 114, Mohali. The complainant booked a dwelling unit (various booking, allotment and payment documents are on record) and paid nearly the full price before the stipulated date for possession (expected by March 2014 as per Clause 10 of booking letter). Possession was handed over later (01.07.2019 in the representative complaint), but the complainant alleged this was incomplete and ineffective because Completion and Occupation Certificates required under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA) had not been obtained, and the Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) and basement parking remained incomplete.

Procedurally: Opposite parties filed replies and preliminary objections (including territorial jurisdiction and AWHO's status as a society run on a no-profit-no-loss basis). Miscellaneous applications by the opposite parties sought to place additional evidence on record (photographs of STP and a conveyance deed); one such application (Misc. Application No. 868 of 2020 in CC No.890/2019) was dismissed for being filed late and attempting to lead evidence beyond pleadings. The Commission heard evidence and arguments and issued a consolidated order partly allowing the complaints and awarding compensation on specific terms.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the complainants qualify as "consumers" and whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain these disputes against AWHO, a Society run on a no-profit-no-loss basis.
Whether the Consumer Commission has territorial jurisdiction over the complaints (projects located in Sector 114, Mohali) despite AWHO's contractual clause purportedly conferring jurisdiction to courts at Delhi.
Whether possession delivered to the allottees is "complete and effective" in the absence of Completion and Occupation Certificates as required under Section 14 of PAPRA and applicable local notifications.
Whether the opposite parties can be held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for delayed and incomplete possession, and if so, what relief and compensation are appropriate.
Whether the opposite parties' grounds for delay (heavy rains, ban on quarrying, contractor disputes, force majeure) absolve them from liability for delay and compensation (including the applicability of Rule 74 of AWHO Rules as a bar to compensation).
Whether additional evidence filed late (photographs/conveyance deed) should be allowed when not pleaded and when sought at the fag end of proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

The complainant paid almost the full price for the allotted unit and completed requisite formalities; the unit was contractually to be ready by March 2014, but possession was delayed until 2019 (representative complaint), causing financial loss (interest on loans) and rent liability.
Possession delivered on 01.07.2019 (representative) was incomplete and ineffective because Completion/Occupation Certificates required under PAPRA had not been obtained; STP was still under construction and basement parking incomplete.
The delay and incomplete possession constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice entitling the complainant to interest/compensation and costs.
Relied upon a number of precedents (e.g., Vision India Realtors; Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh; Kavita Ahuja; Lt. Col. Vijay Kumar Padwal) in support of remedies sought.

Opposite Parties' (AWHO) Arguments

AWHO is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, run on a no-profit-no-loss basis; it argued the complainant is not a "consumer".
Preliminary jurisdictional objection: Rule 95, Chapter 9 of AWHO Rules (Ex.R-1) was invoked to contend that legal proceedings against AWHO lie only in Delhi.
Time for delivery of possession was not the essence of the contract; dates in booking letters were tentative. The complainant could have withdrawn earlier as per AWHO Rules if dissatisfied.
The delays were caused by circumstances beyond AWHO's control — heavy rains (June 2011–Jan 2012), ban on mining/quarrying of sand, contractor disputes and negotiations — and thus fall within the scope of Rule 74 of AWHO Rules excluding compensation for delays beyond AWHO's control.
AWHO asserted the project had requisite approvals, had applied for Occupation Certificate (with GMADA) and that the society was attempting to delink its Occupation Certificate from Ansals Group; possession was taken by complainants without protest.
Opposite parties relied on multiple case authorities (e.g., Harpal Arya; Annu Enterprises; Kiran Batwara; and others) to support their defence on merits and jurisdiction/relief-related points.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (Dead) I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC)	Establishes that Consumer Fora can entertain disputes where the consumer claims deficiency in service and unfair trade practice (i.e., consumer remedies are available even in contexts involving societies).	The Court relied on this authority to reject the opposite parties' contention that the complainant is not a consumer and to hold that Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.
Karwa Developers v. Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. II (2017) CPJ 329 (NC)	Recognizes that members of societies can fall within the definition of 'consumer' and can seek remedies before Consumer Fora.	The Court cited this case to support the conclusion that the complainant, though a member/allottee, is a consumer for the purposes of the Act.
Virender Jain v. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society (Civil Appeal No.64 of 2010) — Supreme Court judgment dated 13.4.2013	Holds that availability of a remedy under another statute does not bar the additional remedy under the Consumer Protection Act; the consumer may choose which remedy to pursue.	The Court applied this principle to reject the opposite parties' plea that other statutory remedies preclude consumer jurisdiction; it affirmed that the Act provides an additional remedy.
Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. and Anr. v. Apple Plast Pvt. Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 172 (NC)	Holds that any clause attempting to restrict jurisdiction to one forum (e.g., a clause designating only Delhi) is contrary to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.	The Court relied on this authority to reject AWHO's territorial jurisdiction objection and to hold that the Commission has jurisdiction over projects located in Mohali.
Saradamani Kandappan & Anr. v. S. Rajalakshmi and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 18	Supreme Court commentary that the historical rule that "time is not of the essence" for immovable property contracts may be inapplicable in modern times of steep inflation; sellers may be prejudiced if time is not treated as essential.	The Court invoked this authority to repulse AWHO's plea that time was not the essence of the contract and to hold that the earlier precedent cannot automatically shield delayed performance in current economic circumstances.
Lt. Col. B.L. Gupta v. Managing Director, AWHO (First Appeal No.556 of 1992) decided on 11.05.1994	The opinion refers to this National Commission decision in context of AWHO's "no profit no loss" contention (text: the National Commission had taken a view relevant to AWHO's status).	The Court referred to this authority as part of its rejection of AWHO's contention that being a no-profit-no-loss society precludes consumer jurisdiction; the opinion cites it in support of treating the complainant as a consumer.
Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra (First Appeal No.855 of 2018)	The provided opinion lists this case as cited by the complainant; the specific rule/principle cited is not detailed in the text.	The case was relied upon by the complainant; the opinion does not elaborate a distinct application of this precedent in its reasoning (the opinion lists it among relied authorities).
Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.) v. Adjutant General & 2 Ors. (Revision Petition No.1982 of 2014)	Listed by the complainant; the opinion does not state the specific principle drawn from this precedent in the provided text.	Cited by the complainant; the opinion does not describe a specific application beyond listing it among authorities relied upon.
Kavita Ahuja v. Shipra Estates Ltd. (CC No.137 of 2010)	Listed by the complainant; the opinion does not set out the principle from this case in the text provided.	Cited by the complainant; no specific application is detailed in the opinion text beyond being relied upon.
Lt. Col. Vijay Kumar Padwal (Retd.) v. Army Welfare Housing Organization & Anr. (CC No.148 of 2019)	Listed by the complainant and decided by this Commission; the opinion does not extract a particular rule within the provided text.	Cited by complainant; the opinion lists this decision among the authorities relied upon.
Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana Estate Manager 2016 (1) CPR 398 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the specific rule/principle cited is not described in the opinion text.	Cited by opposite parties in support of their contentions; the Court's text does not elaborate the specific application of this case.
Annu Enterprises India v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. 2012 (1) CPJ 552 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; no specific principle is stated in the provided opinion text.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion does not detail its application.
Kiran Batwara v. Nav Jeevan Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (2) CPR 365 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the opinion text does not specify the principle relied upon.	Cited by opposite parties; no elaboration of its application in the opinion text.
Prabin Guptey and Associates v. Niketa Park Apartments Condominium & Ors. 2011 (2) CPJ 34 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the opinion does not set out the principle from this case in the provided text.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion does not describe a concrete application.
Shiv Shakti Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 2013 (2) CPJ 156 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; no specific rule/principle is identified in the provided text.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion does not elaborate its application.
Nirmal Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Kollati Constructions Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (3) CLT 496 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the opinion does not include the particular principle cited from this case.	Cited by opposite parties; the Court's opinion does not explicate its use.
Surya Estates & Anr. v. Venkateshwara Sarma and Ors. 2013 (3) CPJ 170 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the provided opinion does not specify the legal principle taken from this case.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion text does not demonstrate a direct application.
Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Gurpreet Singh & Anr. 2016 (2) CLT 84 (NC)	Listed by the opposite parties; the opinion does not describe the rule/principle from this case in the text.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion does not record a detailed application.
Harish Kumar Gupta v. M/s ATS Infrastructure Ltd. (CC No.482 of 2019) — order dated 17.10.2019	Listed by the opposite parties; the opinion does not state the particular principle cited from this order in the provided text.	Cited by opposite parties; the opinion records the citation but does not expound a specific application in its reasoning.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in discrete steps addressing jurisdictional, procedural, statutory and factual questions:

Admissibility of additional evidence (Misc. Application No.868 of 2020 in CC No.890/2019): The opposite parties sought to place on record photographs of STP and a conveyance deed as additional evidence late in the proceedings. The Court emphasized the binding nature of pleadings and that evidence beyond pleadings cannot be admitted without amendment to pleadings. Because the application was filed at the "fag end" of the case (when fixed for arguments) and the opposite parties had not pleaded that STP was provided, the application was dismissed.
Consumer status and jurisdiction: The Court rejected the opposite parties' contention that AWHO's registration as a society run on a no-profit-no-loss basis precludes consumer jurisdiction. Relying on precedents (including Thirumurugan Cooperative and Karwa Developers) and Supreme Court authority (Virender Jain/Alaknanda), the Court held that the dispute concerns provision of dwelling units and basic amenities — activities amounting to "service" under the Consumer Protection Act — and so the complainant falls within the definition of consumer. The territorial jurisdiction objection (clause designating Delhi) was rejected with reference to the principle in Polymech Plast Machines that jurisdiction cannot be curtailed contrary to Section 11(2) of the Act; because the project is in Sector 114, Mohali, the Commission is competent to try the complaints.
Merits — delay and completeness of possession: The Court reviewed the contractual papers (registration, booking letters, payment receipts, allotment and handing/taking over documents). Clause 10 of booking letters showed expected readiness by March 2014. The complainants paid amounts and in several instances cleared dues; possession was delivered years later (dates vary by complainant; e.g., 01.07.2019 in the representative complaint).
Statutory requirements — Completion/Occupation Certificate: The Court examined Section 14 of PAPRA (responsibility of promoter to obtain completion and occupation certificates) and Clause 3.12(i) of the Punjab Government notification dated 07.07.2015 requiring certification by local authority prior to occupation. Finding no evidence that Completion/Occupation Certificates were issued and noting correspondence with GMADA indicating issues and linkage with Ansals Group, the Court held that possession delivered without such certificates cannot be considered complete and effective and thus amounts to non-compliance with PAPRA and the notification.
Rejection of opposite parties' force majeure/justification pleas: The opposite parties attributed delay to heavy rains, ban on quarrying/mining, and contractor disputes. The Court found these grounds unsupported by independent evidence (e.g., no Meteorological Department report) and observed that shortage of material and contractor disputes were not shown to be unforeseeable or beyond control to an extent that would absolve AWHO. The Court also noted that AWHO itself had charged interest for delayed payments and thus could not fully rely on those grounds to avoid liability.
Violation of other provisions of PAPRA: The Court noted, based on the record, that opposite parties failed to produce evidence of requisite approvals/sanctions (possible violation of Section 5 of PAPRA), did not make required disclosures or allow inspections as per Section 3, and did not show maintenance of separate escrows/accounts in a scheduled bank for buyers' deposits as required by Section 9 of PAPRA. The Court recorded these as contraventions.
Relief: On the basis that possession was incomplete and ineffective and there was delay, the Court held the opposite parties liable for compensation for delay in delivery of possession. The Court determined the rate of compensation as 7% per annum on the amounts deposited by the complainants — calculated from 01.04.2014 on amounts deposited up to the stipulated date (31.03.2014) and on respective dates of deposit for later amounts — continuing until Completion/Occupation Certificates are obtained by the opposite parties and possession is effectively handed over.
Scope of relief and limitation: The Court limited relief to compensation for delay at the specified rate and expressly noted that the complainant was not entitled to other reliefs prayed for (because possession, though incomplete, had been delivered).
Application of same reasoning to other consolidated complaints: For the other consumer complaints included in the consolidated proceeding, the Court applied the same reasoning and issued similar directions (partial allowance and 7% per annum compensation until Completion/Occupation Certificates are obtained).
Procedural compliance and timeline: The Court ordered compliance with the directions within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of the order. It also recorded that the cases could not be decided within stipulated time due to heavy pendency and COVID-19 lockdown constraints.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

COMPLAINTS PARTLY ALLOWED. The Court held that (a) the complainants are consumers for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, (b) this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaints concerning the project at Sector 114, Mohali, and (c) possession delivered without Completion and Occupation Certificates, and with incomplete STP/basement parking, was incomplete and ineffective.

Core directive: The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amounts deposited by the complainants — on amounts deposited up to 31.03.2014 with effect from 01.04.2014 and on amounts deposited after 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit — until Completion and Occupation Certificates are obtained by the opposite parties and handed over to the complainants.

The miscellaneous applications by the opposite parties seeking to place additional evidence (photographs of STP and conveyance deed) at a late stage were dismissed.

Implications

Direct effect on parties: The immediate consequence is that the opposite parties must pay the specified rate of compensation to each complainant as calculated above and must obtain Completion/Occupation Certificates from competent authorities; compliance within 45 days of certified copy of the order was mandated.
On the status of the possession: Possession delivered without Completion/Occupation Certificates was held not to be a complete and effective possession; until statutory certificates are obtained, the promoters remain responsible for delay-related compensation.
On broader precedent: The opinion applies and follows existing authorities to clarify that societies performing housing development functions can be subject to consumer jurisdiction and that statutory occupation/completion formalities (PAPRA and applicable local notifications) are material to the validity of possession. The opinion does not announce a new legal doctrine beyond its application of existing law; it limits relief to compensation for delay under the factual matrix before the Commission.

Order dated: July 31, 2020. (Presiding: Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal)

Show full summary ...

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

Col Tejendra Singh v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation

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 : Sh. V.K. Padwal, Advocate For the opposite parties: Sh. Rohan Mittal, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT This order will dispose of above mentioned six (6) Consumer Complaints filed by the complainants, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), as similar questions of facts and law are involved in all the complaints; which have been filed against the same opposite parties by the different complainant(s). The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Misc. Application No.868 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence): This application has been filed by the opposite parties seeking permission to place on record documents Ex.R/A (colly.), by

i.e. photographs of Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) and Conveyance Deed executed in favour of one of the allottees, way of additional evidence. No reply to this application has been filed. Heard. As per plea of the opposite parties in the application, they want to produce aforesaid documents in order to controvert the averments of the complainant made in Para-13 of the complaint that the opposite parties have not provided STP in the project and the Sale Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Deed of the unit, in question, cannot be executed for want of Occupation Certificate obtained by them. However, in reply to Para-13 of the complaint, the opposite parties have nowhere pleaded in Para-

13 of their para-wise reply that the STP has been provided in the project. In this Para, they simply pleaded that the possession of the unit was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2019 and he is not entitled to compensation for delay in delivery of possession, as per Rule 74 of AWHO Rules as amended in the Master Brochure of July

87 as amended up to 01.06.2019. Even the fact of re-applying for grant of Occupation Certificate with GMADA by them on 31.07.2019 has been admitted in this para. Thus, the fact remains that no such pleading regarding providing STP in the project was made by the opposite parties in the corresponding para of their reply. So far as the execution of Sale Deed in favour of one of the allottees is concerned, since the Completion and Occupation Certificates, as envisaged under Section 14 of PAPRA, have not been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities, so execution of Sale Deed in favour of one of the allottees cannot be given much weight and possession of the unit is to be termed incomplete and effective, for want of Completion and Occupation Certificates. It also needs to be emphasized that the sole purpose of pleadings is to bind the parties to a stand. If the parties are allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings, then the sacrosancy of pleadings will come to an end and the entire purpose of filing pleadings will also stand defeated. The law provides a procedure for amendment of pleadings and if there are new facts, Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 which the party wanted to bring on record, it can amend the pleadings. However, without amendment of pleadings, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings. Moreover, the application has been filed by the opposite parties at the fag end of the case, when it was fixed for arguments. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Main Case: The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Act, against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them:

i) to obtain Occupation and Completion Certificate, in accordance with Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, PAPRA) and Rules; ii) to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from 30.04.2014 till Completion/Occupation Certificates are obtained by them; as incomplete and ineffective possession was delivered on 01.07.2019; iii) to pay compensation of 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part; and iv) to pay 1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses. Facts of the Complaint

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the opposite parties launched a project in November, 2008 under the name and style of Mohali Army Welfare Housing Organization Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 (AWHO) situated at Sector 114, Sub Post Office Landran, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The complainant, for his personal use and for use of his family, initially booked a dwelling unit in the said upcoming project of the opposite parties, vide Application Form No.33096, which was registered, vide Registration No.OFF/SD/106659/AR/ MOHALI/ 2006, Ex.C-1. His name was considered for allotment and letter dated 23.01.2006 regarding Acceptance of Registration: Annual Registration Ex.C-1 was issued. Booking Letter dated 01.04.2009, Final Option of Preference of the unit dated 21.01.2010 and letter dated 05.07.2010 are Ex.C-2 (colly.). The complainant was allotted dwelling unit No.P-0402, measuring 1680 sq.ft., including basement car parking No.P-B515 measuring 132.68 sq.ft. Copy of Booking Letter for construction cost dated 13.05.2011 is Ex.C-3. Approximate cost of the unit was 50,31,000/-. The complainant paid a total sum of 48,67,860/- toward the cost of unit etc. as per details given in Para No.5 of the complaint. He took a loan of 25,00,000/- from Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF) for the purpose of purchasing the said unit, vide Loan Sanction Letter dated 01.06.2011, and remaining amount was paid by him out of his savings. Thus, the total amount of 50,31,000/- was paid to the opposite parties before due date i.e. 30.06.2014, as the complainant was assured that on making full payment of remaining amount in one go, rebate of 1% would be given. As per Clause 10 of Booking Letter for Construction Cost Ex.C-3, the unit was expected to be ready for possession by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 within that period, as a result of which the complainant is suffering continuous financial loss, as he is paying interest of 2,00,000/- to 2,50,000/- approximately on the loan amount. Besides this, since March, 2014, the complainant was living on rent by paying 25,000/- per month, due to delay in delivery of possession. In case of delay in payment of instalments, the opposite parties charge interest at the rate of 10% and, as such, the complainant is also entitled to same rate of interest on the deposited amount on account of delay in delivery of possession of the unit, in question. The opposite party issued letter dated 23.07.2015, Ex.C-7, under subject Option Letter for Specific Floor and Parking Space for the unit booked by him. Later on, they sent letter dated 04.06.2018, Ex.C-8, under subject Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account, which contained details of payment made and the final payment to be made before taking the possession. The complainant cleared all the payments and the opposite parties sent letter dated 05.03.2019, Ex.C-9, acknowledging full and final payment towards price of the unit and receipt of requisite documents from the complainant. Possession of the unit was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2019, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-10 and Possession Certificate Ex.C-11. However, it was an incomplete and ineffective possession, as no Occupation and Completion Certificates have been obtained by them from the competent authorities, as per provisions of PAPRA. This fact is also evident from letter dated 16.10.2019 Ex.C-12. The project, in question, is still incomplete and construction work of Sewerage Treatment Plant Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 (STP) was still going on. Basement parking is also not completed. The project was still to be taken over by AWHO from the contractor. There is inordinate delay in delivering the possession, for which no compensation has been paid by the opposite parties. Had the possession of the unit, in question, been delivered in time, the complainant would have enjoyed its comforts, as there is no other dwelling unit except the unit, in question. 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, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint reply to the complaint, raising preliminary submissions that the reliefs sought for by the complainant are ill-conceived and without any basis, as possession of the unit has already been delivered. As per Rule 95 of Chapter 9 of AWHO Rules, Ex.R-1, for all legal proceedings against AWHO, only the appropriate Court at Delhi has the jurisdiction. The AWHO is a society registered with the Registrar of Societies, Delhi, under the Societies Registration Act. Its object is to provide dwelling units to serving and retired army personnel and their widows all over India on no profit no loss basis. It develops, as a welfare measure, all its group housing projects with the help of contributions made by the allottees, apart from short term borrowings from financial institutions, such as HUDCO and National Housing Bank. The AWHO maintains, on a contractual basis, services of its own planners, architects, engineers, surveyors, project managers, staff and employees, as Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 required from time to time. It does not receive any grant from the Central Government or Army Headquarters. The AWHO is the only organization in India, which refunds pro rata to its allottees, any sum, if found surplus upon closure of project accounts. The complainant is also a beneficiary of any such surplus amount, which may remain at the end of the completion of the project. It is further pleaded that the time was never the essence of the contract in the case of the complainant, as he has himself stated in the complaint that he had booked a dwelling unit with the hope that whenever AWHO project comes up in Sector 114, Mohali, his name would be considered for allotment. Furthermore, application for consideration was made on 23.01.2006, whereas the final option for preference of dwelling unit was provided by the complainant on 05.07.2010. If time was essence of the contract, the complainant could have, at any time, chosen to change his mind and withdrawn/terminated his application, as provided under Rules 46 to 50 of Chapter V of the AWHO Rules. No certain date for delivery of possession was ever committed. As per Clause-10 of booking letter, the dwelling unit was expected to be handed over by March, 2014. It was further pleaded that the contract for construction 1048 units at the said location was finalized on 16.03.2011. The project comprises 3 basements and 22 towers of 12/13 storey configuration. Due to heavy rains from June, 2011 to January 2012, the work on pile foundation and basements was vastly hampered. The site was flooded with almost three feet of water due, to which de- watering process had to be resorted. It also affected the movement of Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 labour and other equipment and led to delay in the original timeline. Accordingly, the third instalment of construction linked payment plan (20%) was postponed from 18.05.2012 to 18.11.2012. Further, due to intermittent ban on mining/quarrying of sand, the timeline was affected negatively in the year 2012 and 2013, due to which the fourth instalment, which was originally due on 16.01.2013, was also postponed to 17.06.2013. Due date of fifth instalment was also postponed from 16.08.2013 to 30.06.2014. It was further pleaded that around June, 2014, the contractor started raising unreasonable demands, which were contractually unacceptable to the opposite parties, as it would have led to further increase in the cost of dwelling units. Due to negotiations with the contractor, the timeline for completing the construction was further delayed. Thus, the aforesaid reasons causing delay in completing construction and delivering possession were beyond the control of the opposite parties and amount to force majeure circumstances. As per Rule 74 of AWHO Rules, an allottee is not entitled to any compensation in the event of delay cause by factors beyond the control of AWHO. The delay in delivery of possession of the dwelling units was duly informed to the allottees, vide letter dated 24.10.2016. On merits, booking the dwelling unit by the complainant vide Registration No.OFF/SD/106659/ AR/MOHALI/2006 was admitted. It was further pleaded that, vide booking letter dated 20.11.2008, part cost of the unit was sought to be recovered and at that time, the tentative cost of the Super Deluxe Apartment was 48 lac. The complainant was required to pay Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 13,50,000/- towards part cost in two instalments by 09.04.2009 and 10.07.2009. Booking letter to recover construction cost for Super Deluxe Apartment issued on 13.05.2011 was revised; as per which tentative cost was fixed as 50,31,000/-. However, vide Final Statement of Accounts, final cost of dwelling unit was assessed as 50,90,000/-, excluding the cost of parking and other charges. The complainant made payment of a total sum of 57,26,613/- towards price of the unit, as per details given in Para-5 of the reply. The loan was availed by the complainant of his own accord as an individual financial decision as per terms and conditions of loan mutually agreed between him and the lending Bank. It was denied that a sum of 50,31,000/- was paid by the complainant before the due date i.e. 30.06.2014. In fact, a sum of 46,35,204/- was paid as on 30.06.2014. A sum of 12,750/- was paid by him as interest. The complainant was given 1% rebate, as mentioned in booking letter dated 13.05.2011, amounting to 18,857/- on the instalments paid in full and on time. It was further pleaded that the complainant took possession of the dwelling unit on 01.07.2019, without raising any objection. There is nothing on record to show that the possession of the unit was forced upon him. The project, in question, was completed in all respects and Occupation Certificate was applied on 07.06.2017. However, the same was returned without being processed by GMADA, due to certain pending issues of M/s Ansals in respect of obtaining partial Completion Certificate by them. Opposite party No.1 is making all efforts to delink the grant of Occupation Certificate from that of M/s Ansals and it again Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 applied for grant of the same on 31.07.2019. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation, in consonance with Rule 74 of AWHO Rules, as mentioned in Master Brochure of July 87 as amended up to 01.06.2019. Other similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder to the reply was filed, in which averments of the complaint were reiterated and pleadings of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Evidence of the Parties

5. To prove his claim, the complainant filed his own affidavit, along with copies of documents i.e. Acceptance of Registration: Annual Registration dated 23.01.2006 Ex.C-1 (colly.), booking letter dated 01.04.2009 Ex.C-2 (colly.), booking letter dated 13.05.2011 Ex.C-3, payment receipts/cheques Ex.C-4 (colly.), Statement of Account Ex.C-5, Tripartite Agreement Ex.C-6, Option Letter dated 23.07.2015 Ex.C-7, Handing/Taking Over Instructions Ex.C-8 (colly.), Clearance Letter dated 05.3.2009 Ex.C-9, Possession Handing/Taking Certificate dated 01.07.2019 Ex.C-10(colly.), Possession Certificate Ex.C-11 and letter dated 16.10.2019 Ex.C-12.

6. The opposite parties, in support of their defence, filed affidavit of Col. Atul Mohan, Director (Planning), along with copies of documents i.e. copy of part of Master Brochure Ex.R-1, Application Form Ex.R-2, letters Ex.R-3 (colly.), letter dated 24.10.2016 Ex.R-4, Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 letter dated 13.05.2011 Ex.R-5 and correspondence with GMADA Ex.R-6 (colly.). Contentions of the Parties

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record and written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.

8. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant are on the lines of averments made in the complaint. It was further contended that that the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, despite receipt of entire amount towards the price thereof. The complainant took loan of 25,00,000/- from AGIF, but due to delay in delivery of possession, he suffered huge financial loss by paying extra interest to AGIF on the loan amount. The averment of the opposite parties that the AWHO is being run on no profit no loss basis has been repelled by the Honble National Commission in First Appeal No.556 of 1992 (Lt. Col. B.L. Gupta v. Managing Director, AWHO) decided on 11.05.1994. Except the unit, in question, there is no unit with the complainant and, as such, he comes under the definition of consumer. It was further contended that the possession of the unit was to be delivered by March, 2014, with Completion/Occupation Certificate. However, the incomplete and ineffective possession was forcibly delivered on 01.07.2019 that too with huge delay. The Completion/Occupation has not yet been obtained by the opposite parties. It was further contended that Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 has not yet been properly installed; which is still under construction. Basement parking is also not fit to be occupied. Thus, the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for complainant relied upon following cases:

i) First Appeal No.855 of 2018 (Vision India Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sanjeev Malhotra) decided on 13.06.2018 (NC); ii) Revision Petition No.1982 of 2014 (Lt. Col. Ajmer Singh (Retd.)

v. Adjutant General & 2 Ors.) decided on 16.02.2015 (NC); iii) CC No.137 of 2010 (Kavita Ahuja v. Shipra Estates Ltd.) decided on 12.02.2015 (NC); and iv) Consumer Complaint No.148 of 2019 (Lt. Col. Vijay Kumar Padwal (Retd.) v. Army Welfare Housing Organization & Anr.) decided by this Commission on 04.10.2019;

9. The written arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties are also on the lines of pleadings made in their reply. It was further contended that opposite party No.1-Society is formed for making available affordable housing facility to serving and retired army personnel as well as their widows all over India, on no profit and no loss basis. It develops its group housing projects with the help of contributions made by the allottees as well as taking loan from the financial institutions like HUDCO, National Housing Bank etc. It gets no grant from the Central Government or Army Head Quarters for managing its welfare activities. The AWHO is the only organization in India, which refunds pro rata to its allottees, any sum, if found surplus upon closure of project accounts. As such, the complainant is not a consumer and he cannot raise consumer dispute. It has been further contended that the opposite parties have already obtained the Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 requisite approvals and permissions from the competent authorities for raising their project and the Society has incurred huge expenses on the development thereof. The delay in completing the project has occurred, due to the reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, as explained in the reply. The complainant was given liberty to withdraw from the group housing scheme, as per Rules 46 to 50 of Chapter V of the AWHO Rules, but he did not opt for the same. There was no definite period fixed for delivery of possession and the said period was only tentative. Time was not the essence of the contract. However, the project has been completed in all respects. The possession of the unit, in question, has already been taken by the complainant on 01.07.2019 without raising any objection/protest and no dispute is left between the parties. The Occupation Certificate was applied on 07.06.2017. However, GMADA returned it without processing the same due to certain pending issue of M/s Ansals in respect of obtaining partial Completion Certificate by them. The Society is making best efforts to delink the grant of Occupation Certificate from that of M/s Ansals. Occupation Certificate has again been applied on 31.07.2019. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation, as per Rule 74 of AWHO Rules, as mentioned in Master Brochure of July 87 as amended up to 01.06.2019. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon following cases: Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019

i) Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana Estate Manager 2016 (1) CPR 398 (NC); ii) Annu Enterprises India v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. 2012 (1) CPJ 552 (NC); iii) Kiran Batwara v. Nav Jeevan Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (2) CPR 365 (NC); iv) Prabin Guptey and Associates v. Niketa Park Apartments Condominium & Ors. 2011 (2) CPJ 34 (NC);

v) Shiv Shakti Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. 2013 (2) CPJ 156 (NC); vi) Nirmal Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. M/s Kollati Constructions Ltd. & Ors. 2015 (3) CLT 496 (NC); vii) Surya Estates & Anr. v. Venkateshwara Sarma and Ors. 2013 (3) CPJ 170 (NC); viii) Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Gurpreet Singh & Anr. 2016 (2) CLT 84 (NC); and ix) Mr. Harish Kumar Gupta v. M/s ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.482 of 2019, decided by this Commission, vide order dated 17.10.2019. Consideration of Contentions

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

11. First of all, I would like to deal with the plea of the opposite parties that opposite party No.1-Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it is being run on no profit no loss basis and therefore the complainant is not its consumer.

12. Admittedly, the complainant, being army personnel, applied with the opposite parties for allotment of residential unit and he was issued Acceptance of Registration: Annual Registration dated 23.01.2006 Ex.C-1 and booking letter dated 01.04.2009 Ex.C-2. It is Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 the plea of opposite parties that opposite party No.1-Society develops its group housing projects with the help of contributions made by the allottees as well as taking loan from the financial institutions. As per the settled principle of law, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is not a pure dispute between the members of the Society regarding its governance. In fact, this dispute is with regard to providing the unit and its development by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1-Society has also promised for providing basic amenities and development at the site, in question, and as such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of service as defined in the Act. There is element of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to non-performance of the contract, whereby facilities were to be provided to the complainant by way of units. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (Dead), I (2004) CPJ 1(SC) that Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, where the consumer comes to the Consumer Fora claiming the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the present case also, consumer-complainant is complaining that the opposite parties have not complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment. There is no dispute between opposite parties and the complainant regarding management and governance of the Society. The remedy available before the Consumer Fora is an additional remedy. Accordingly the complainant, being member of opposite party No.1- Society, falls under the definition of consumer as held by Hon'ble Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 National Commission in case "Karwa Developers v. Shree Vinayak Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd..", II(2017) CPJ 329 (NC). Similarly the Honble Supreme Court in judgment dated 13.4.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.64 of 2010 Virender Jain

v. Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society had widened the scope of the Act, by holding that even membership disputes can be decided by the Consumer Fora. In that case, Virender, Sudesh, Pankaj, Nitin and Sudarshan Jain were Members of Alaknanda Cooperative Group Housing Society, who applied for units being constructed by the Society. They had individually deposited money for booking their flats. The Society sent a letter on 9.2.2004 terminating their membership and the society also sent its cheques towards a refund of the amount deposited by those Members. The termination of the membership was approved by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The members challenged the termination of their membership by filing Consumer Complaints before the District Forum and sought a direction to restore the same and for issuance of share certificates after the entire balance consideration was paid. They also claimed damages to the tune of 50,000/-, each. The Society questioned the maintainability of the complaint by challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and contended that such disputes could only be adjudicated by appropriate proceedings under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act. The District Forum held that a consumer complaint was maintainable as the Act provides an additional remedy. However, it dismissed the complaint on merits. In Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 appeal, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, ruled that the members could not be termed consumers and the dispute was not maintainable. In the revision petition, the Honble National Commission upheld the view taken by the Haryana State Commission. Ultimately the Members approached the Honble Supreme Court of India, which while citing its own several judgments, held that the settled legal position is that the existence of a remedy under a statute would not act as a bar to the additional remedy available under the Act. The option to choose, which remedy to adopt, vests with the consumer. Accordingly the Honble Supreme Court of India affirmed the view taken in M. Lalithas case (supra) and concluded that the Societys action of terminating membership with the approval of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies would not act as an impediment to such an act being challenged under the Act. In view of ratio of law laid in above noted authorities, the aforesaid plea of the opposite parties is rejected and the complainant is held to be the consumer of the opposite parties and there is element of hiring of service by payment of sale consideration.

13. So far as the plea of the opposite parties regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that the project, in which the allotment of the unit has been made, is situated at Sector 114, Mohali, Punjab. Hence this Commission is competent to try the complaint, as per the Act. Moreover, jurisdiction is conferred by the Statute and not by mutual arrangement by parties. Still further, Honble National Commission Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 (Polymech Plast Machines Ltd. and Anr. v. Apple Plast Pvt. Ltd.) IV (2006) CPJ 172(NC) held that any such clause restricting the jurisdiction to one of the District Forums/State Commissions is contrary to Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the above said objection raised by the opposite parties is also rejected, holding that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint.

14. Now, coming to merits of the case, admittedly, the name of the complainant was registered with opposite party No.1-Society for allotment of a dwelling unit, vide Acceptance of Registration: Annual Registration letter dated 23.01.2006, Ex.C-1 (colly.). He was issued Booking Letter dated 01.04.2009, Ex.C-2. Final option for preference of dwelling unit was sought from the complainant, vide letter dated 21.01.2010, Ex.C-2 (colly.). Vide Booking Letter for Construction cost/Cost of Dwelling Unit dated 13.05.2011 Ex.C-3, tentative cost of the unit was informed to be 50,31,000/-. It is also mentioned that a sum of 7,77,750/- was already paid by the complainant and the balance amount of 42,53,250/- was payable, as per Payment Schedule mentioned therein. The complainant took loan from AGIF to the tune of 25,00,000/- for making payment of price of the unit, as per Tripartite Agreement Ex.C-6. The complainant made payment of various amounts, vide receipts Ex.C-4 (colly.). Option for specific floor and parking space in Sector 114 was sought from the complainant, vide letter dated 23.07.2015 Ex.C-7 (colly.). Vide allotment letter dated 27.06.2016 Ex.C-7 (colly.), the complainant was allotted Super Deluxe Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Apartment No.4FL/0402 in Block-P. The complainant was issued Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account, vide letter dated 04.01.2018 Ex.C-8. As per Statement of Account as on 01.06.2018, a sum of 48,67,860/- was paid by the complainant and balance payable amount was 8,90,360/-. However, as per details given in Para-5 of reply of the opposite parties on merits, the complainant had paid a total sum of 57,26,613/-; meaning thereby that all the dues, interest and other charges were cleared by the complainant. Even as per Clearance Letter for Handing Over of Dwelling Unit dated 05.03.2019 Ex.C-9, it was acknowledged by the opposite parties that the complainant had made full payment towards price of the unit and had also deposited all the requisite documents with the opposite parties.

15. As per Clause-10 of letter Ex.C-3, the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the possession of the unit, in question, was delivered to the complainant on 01.07.2019, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-10, and Possession Certificate Ex.C-11. The delay in completing the project and delivering possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant has been duly admitted by the opposite parties in Para-6 of preliminary objections of their reply. The plea of the opposite parties regarding heavy rains between June, 2011 to January, 2012 is not supported by any report of Meteorological Department or concerned Weather Station and in the absence of the same, this plea of the opposite parties cannot be believed. So far as alleged ban on mining/quarrying Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that the shortage of building material cannot be said to be a ground, which cannot be foreseen and for constructing such like projects, prior and sufficient arrangements of building material could have been made. The alleged dispute between the contractors and the opposite parties also cannot be given much weight, as it relates to internal dispute between them. Therefore, all these grounds cannot be said to be beyond the control of the opposite parties. No doubt, as per plea of the opposite parties, the complainant was given some relaxation of time in payment of instalments due to alleged grounds, yet it is a matter of fact that they also charged substantial amount of interest on account of delay in making payment of various instalments, as is apparent from Statement of Account Ex.C-

5 (colly.).

16. Furthermore, no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities. As per letter dated 07.07.2017, various documents were sought by GMADA from the opposite parties for facilitating issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate. It is also clear from letters dated 23.06.2018, 17.11.2018 and 18.12.2018 Ex.R-6 (colly.) that matter of issuance of Occupation Certificate to the opposite parties had been linked with that of Ansals Group and a request was made to GMADA to delink their Occupation Certificate from that of Ansals and to issue separate Occupation Certificate to the opposite parties, but the fact remains that no Occupation Certificate has since been issued to them. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019

17. Section 14 of PAPRA, which deals with responsibility of the promoter to obtain Completion and Occupation Certificate from the competent Authority, reads as under:

14. It is the responsibility of the promoter-

(i) in the case of apartments, to obtain from the authority required to do so under any law completion and occupation certificates for the building and if a promoter, within a reasonable time, after the construction of the building, does not apply for an occupation certificate from the aforesaid authority, the allottee of an apartment may apply for an occupation certificate from the said authority; and

(ii) in the case of a colony, to obtain completion certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the development works have been completed in all aspects as per terms and conditions of the licence granted to him under section 5. (2) The authority referred to in sub-section (1) shall, after satisfying itself about the agreement of sale between the promoter and the allottee, and the compliance of the building regulations and all other formalities, issue an occupation certificate.

18. Further, Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), which is applicable to the properties falling within the Municipal Limits, provides as under: No person shall occupy or allow other person to occupy any new building or part of a new building for any purpose whatsoever until such building or part thereof has been certified by the local authority or of any person authorized by it in this behalf to be in every respect completed according to the sanctioned plan and fit for the use for which it is erected.

19. There is no evidence on record to prove that the unit, in question, or a part thereof has been got certified by the opposite parties from the local authority, so as to deliver its complete and Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 effective possession to the complainant. It amounts to violation of Section 14 of PAPRA and Clause 3.12 (i) of the Notification dated 07th July, 2015 published in the Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary by Department of Local Government (Town Planning Wing), as reproduced above. Thus, in the absence of Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, under Section 14 of PAPRA, the possession of the unit deliver to the complainant on 01.07.2019 cannot be held to be a complete and effective possession.

20. So far as the plea of the opposite parties that the possession was taken by the complainant without raising any kind of protest is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that it is specific admission of the opposite parties that the matter of issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate to their project has been linked with the project of M/s Ansals and their request to delink the same has not yet been finalized. In view of this, the possession offered is not a valid possession and, as such, the plea of the opposite parties is rejected and the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties in this regard are also distinguishable.

21. So far as the plea of the opposite parties that the time was never the essence of the contract, is concerned, it needs to be emphasized that the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in Saradamani Kandappan & Anr. v. S. Rajalakshmi and Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 18, held in Para Nos.25 & 26 as under:

25. The reality arising from this economic change cannot continue to be ignored in deciding cases relating to specific performance. The steep increase in prices is a circumstance which makes it inequitable to grant the relief of specific Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 performance where the purchaser does not take steps to complete the sale within the agreed period, and the vendor has not been responsible for any delay or non-performance. A purchaser can no longer take shelter under the principle that time is not of essence in performance of contracts relating to immovable property, to cover his delays, laches, breaches and `non-readiness'. The precedents from an era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of the essence of the contract in regard to immovable properties, may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein is unsound or erroneous, but the circumstances that existed when the said principle was evolved, no longer exist. In these days of galloping increases in prices of immovable properties, to hold that a vendor who took an earnest money of say about 10% of the sale price and agreed for three months or four months as the period for performance, did not intend that time should be the essence, will be a cruel joke on him, and will result in injustice. Adding to the misery is the delay in disposal of cases relating to specific performance, as suits and appeals therefrom routinely take two to three decades to attain finality. As a result, an owner agreeing to sell a property for Rs.One lakh and received Rs.Ten Thousand as advance may be required to execute a sale deed a quarter century later by receiving the remaining Rs.Ninety Thousand, when the property value has risen to a crore of rupees.

26. It is now well settled that laws, which may be reasonable and valid when made, can, with passage of time and consequential change in circumstances, become arbitrary and unreasonable.

22. The ratio of the law laid down in above cited authority is that the precedent of time being not essence of contract in case of immovable property, was made when rise in prices of property was unknown. However, such precedent does not apply in modern times of galloping increases in prices of properties. Therefore, the aforesaid plea of the opposite parties stands repelled.

23. Besides this, the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove that the requisite approvals/sanctions were obtained by them from the competent authorities, before launching the said project. This amounts to violation of Section 5 of PAPRA.

24. As per Section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 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 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.

25. 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.

26. In view of my above discussion, it is held that incomplete and ineffective possession of the unit was delivered, without obtaining Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities, that too with huge delay. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 31.03.2014 with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief, as the possession of the unit has already been delivered and compensation for delay in delivery of possession is going to be awarded.

27. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.927 of 2019 Misc. Application No.890 of 2020 (Addl. Evidence):

28. This application has been filed by the opposite parties seeking permission to place on record documents Ex.R/A (colly.), by way of additional evidence i.e. photographs of Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) and Conveyance Deed executed in favour of one of the allottees. Reply to the application was filed.

29. Heard. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019

30. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Misc. Application No.868 of 2020 in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this application is dismissed. Main Case:

31. Similarly, in this case also, the complainant was issued Booking Letter dated 17.04.2009 Ex.C-1 (colly.) for allotment of a dwelling unit in the project of the opposite parties situated in Sector 114, Mohali. Vide booking letter for construction cost/cost of dwelling unit dated 23.05.2011 Ex.C-1 (colly.), tentative cost of the unit was informed to be 50,66,784/-. A sum of 16,66,450/- was shown to have been deposited and balance payable amount was shown as 34,00,334/-. Option for specific floor and parking space was sought from the complainant, vide letter dated 23.07.2015 Ex.C-4. The complainant was issued Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account, vide letter dated 07.02.2018 Ex.C-5; vide which Super Deluxe Apartment bearing No.0202, Floor 2FL, Block-M, along with covered car parking under basement bearing No.CPB-B655 was allotted to him. As per Statement of Account Ex.C-5 (colly.), total amount due was shown as 55,35,414/-. Against it, a total sum of 49,33,340/- stood paid by the complainant as on 25.06.2014. Rebate of 47,890/- was given to him and balance payable amount was shown as 6,02,074/-. As per Clearance Letter for handing over of unit dated 13.03.2018 Ex.C-6, the complainant has made full payment towards the price of the unit and all the requisite documents were also submitted to the opposite parties. As per Clause-10 of booking letter Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 dated 23.05.2011 Ex.C-1 (colly.), the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period. The possession was delivered on 08.03.2019, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-8 (colly.) and Possession Certificate Ex.C-9. The grievances of the complainant are that the possession delivered is incomplete and ineffective, since no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and there is huge delay of about five years in delivering the possession from the stipulated date fixed for the same. Similar prayer, as made in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, has been made.

32. The opposite parties filed joint reply to the complaint, on the lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Similar documents have been filed and similar written arguments have been filed, as filed/discussed in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019.

33. In the present case also, the possession of the flat was delivered by the opposite parties after delay of about five years from the stipulated date fixed for delivery of possession, without obtaining Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities. Thus, the possession delivered was incomplete and ineffective and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been duly proved. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019

34. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2020

35. In this case also, earlier the complainant applied for allotment of unit in the project of the opposite parties at Ludhiana namely Ludhiana, Bishan Vihar, Dugri Road, Phase-III and his name was registered for allotment of dwelling unit in that project, vide Allotment of Registration Number/Annual Registration dated 08.02.2011 Ex.C-1. He was issued Registration No.OFF/DXA/ 151901/AR/Ludhiana/2011. However, the opposite parties issued letter dated 29.02.2012 Ex.C-2 to the complainant, informing that the above said project had been completed and all 170 constructed dwelling units in different categories had already been handed over to the concerned allottees. It was also informed that no new projects were likely to come up in Ludhiana in near future. As such, due to non-availability of land, the complainant was suggested either to withdraw from the said scheme or transfer his registration to any other station. Accordingly, Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 the complainant requested the opposite parties for transfer his registration from above said project to Sector 114, Mohali project of the opposite parties and his request was accepted, vide letter dated 10.05.2012 Ex.C-3. He was issued booking letter for construction cost/cost of dwelling unit dated 11.07.2012 Ex.C-4, as per which approximate estimated cost of the unit was 40,00,999/-. A sum of 81,250/- was shown to have been deposited and balance payable amount was shown as 39,19,749/-. The complainant obtained loan of 20,23,000/- from AGIF, as per Loan Sanction Letter dated 08.10.2012 Ex.C-7 (colly.). Re-process-Sanction Letter dated 26.08.2013 Ex.C-7 (colly.) was also issued regarding loan of 20,23,000/- with some changes. Vide Allotment of Specific Dwelling Unit and Parking Space letter dated 24.06.2016 Ex.C-8, the complainant was allotted Modern Apartment No.4FL/0401, Block-W, Harbhajan Vihar, Sector 114, Mohali, along with covered car parking under stilt bearing No.W-CPS-S224. As per Statement of Account Ex.C-6, total amount due was shown as 41,74,601/-. Against it, a total sum of 43,41,320/- stood paid by the complainant as on 05.05.2017 and rebate of 40,202/- was given to him. As per Clearance Letter for handing over of unit dated 10.04.2017 Ex.C-10, the complainant made full payment towards the price of the unit and all the requisite documents were also submitted by him to the opposite parties. As per Clause-10 of letter Ex.C-4, the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period. The Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 possession was delivered on 08.02.2018, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-11 and Possession Certificate Ex.C-12. The grievances of the complainant are that the possession delivered is incomplete and ineffective, since no Completion/ Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and there is huge delay of about three years and

11 months in delivering the possession from the stipulated date fixed for the same. Similar prayer, as made in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, has been made.

36. The opposite parties filed joint reply to the complaint, on the lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Similar documents have been filed and similar written arguments have been filed, as filed/discussed in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019.

37. In the present case also, the possession of the flat was delivered by the opposite parties after delay of about three years and

11 months from the stipulated date fixed for delivery of possession, without obtaining the Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities. Thus, the possession delivered was incomplete and ineffective and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been duly proved.

38. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this complaint is partly allowed and the Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2020

39. Similarly, in this case also, earlier the complainant applied for allotment of Utility Apartment in the project of the opposite parties at Greater Noida, vide Application Form dated 06.04.2005 Ex.R-5, but later on he got shifted his allotment from Greater Noida to Dwarka. This fact is evident from letter dated 14.05.2007 Ex.R-6. He further got shifted his allotment from Dwarka to Sector 114, Mohali, as per letter dated 08.07.2009 20.07.2009 Ex.R-7. As per letter dated 20.07.2009 Ex.R-8 also, his allotment was shifted from Sector 22, New Delhi to Sector 114, Mohali. Booking letter for construction cost/cost of dwelling unit dated 02.06.2011 Ex.C-1 was issued to him, as per which tentative cost of the unit was 36,60,817/-. A sum of 10,09,314/- was shown to have been deposited and balance payable amount was mentioned as 26,51,503/-. Vide Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account issued, vide letter dated 27.02.2017, Ex.C- 4, Modern Apartment No.0503, Floor 5FL, Block-Y with open car parking No.OCP-OC948 was allotted to the complainant. As per Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Statement of Account Ex.C-3, total amount due was shown as 38,86,832/-. Against it, a total sum of 35,61,694/- stood paid by the complainant as on 23.02.2017 and rebate of 34,380/- was given to him. Balance amount payable was shown as 3,25,138/-. As per Clearance Letter for handing over of unit dated 20.06.2017 Ex.C-5, the complainant made full payment towards the price of the unit and all the requisite documents were also submitted by him to the opposite parties. As per Clause-10 of letter Ex.C-1, the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period. The possession was delivered on 18.07.2017, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-6 (colly.) and Possession Certificate Ex.C-7. The grievances of the complainant are that the possession delivered is incomplete and ineffective, since no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and there is huge delay of more than three years in delivering the possession from the stipulated date fixed for the same. Similar prayer, as made in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, has been made.

40. The opposite parties filed joint reply to the complaint, on the lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Similar documents have been filed and similar written Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 arguments have been filed, as discussed in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019.

41. In the present case also, the possession of the flat was delivered by the opposite parties after delay of more than three years from the stipulated date fixed for delivery of possession, without obtaining Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities. Thus, the possession delivered was incomplete and ineffective and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been duly proved.

42. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.37 of 2020

43. Similarly, in this case also, earlier the complainant applied for allotment of dwelling unit in the project of the opposite parties at Sector 22 & 23, Dwarka, New Delhi and his name was registered vide Registration No.NCO/SFA/118017/SS/New Delhi/2007, vide letter dated 05.07.2007 Ex.C-1. Later on, his choice of station was changed Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 from New Delhi to Mohali, vide letter dated 12.02.2008 Ex.C-2. He was issued booking letter dated 20.04.2009 Ex.C-3 for allotment of dwelling unit in Sector 114, Mohali. Thereafter, booking letter for construction cost/cost of dwelling unit dated 23.05.2011 Ex.C-4 was issued to him, as per which tentative cost of the unit was 28,87,157/-. A sum of 7,33,938/- was shown to have been deposited and balance payable amount was mentioned as 21,53,219/-. The complainant was allotted Small Family Apartment No.12FL/1203, Block-W in the above said project of the opposite parties, vide allotment letter dated 24.06.2016 Ex.C-7. Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account were issued, vide letter dated 03.03.2017, Ex.C-8 (colly.). As per Statement of Account, total amount due was shown as 30,90,823/-. Against it, a total sum of 28,16,562/- stood paid by the complainant as on 03.03.2017 and rebate of 24,040/- was given to him. Balance amount payable was shown as 2,74,261/-. As per Clearance Letter dated 19.09.2017 Ex.C-9, the complainant made full payment towards the price of the unit and all the requisite documents were also submitted by him to the opposite parties. As per Clause-10 of letter Ex.C-4, the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period. The possession was delivered on 03.10.2017, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-10 (colly.) and Possession Certificate Ex.C-11. The grievances of the complainant are that the possession delivered is incomplete and ineffective, since no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 parties from the competent authorities and there is huge delay of about three and a half years in delivering possession of the unit from the stipulated date fixed for the same. Similar prayer, as made in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, has been made.

44. The opposite parties filed joint reply to the complaint, on the lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Similar documents have been filed and similar written arguments have been filed, as discussed in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019.

45. In the present case also, the possession of the flat was delivered by the opposite parties after delay of about three and half years from the stipulated date fixed for delivery of possession, that too without obtaining Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities. Thus, the possession delivered was incomplete and ineffective and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been duly proved.

46. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant. Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2020

47. Similarly, in this case also, the complainant applied for allotment of a Deluxe Apartment in the project of the opposite parties situated in Sector 114, Mohali and he was issued Registration No.OFF/DXA/141039/AR/Mohali/2009, vide letter dated 01.09.2009 Ex.C-1. He was issued booking letter dated 12.10.2009 Ex.C-2 for allotment of dwelling unit in Sector 114, Mohali. Thereafter, booking letter for construction cost/cost of dwelling unit dated 06.06.2011 Ex.C-

3 was issued to him, as per which tentative cost of the unit was 36,60,908/-. A sum of 10,10,375/- was shown to have been deposited and balance payable amount was mentioned as 26,50,533/-.The complainant obtained loan of 24,00,000/- from State Bank of India, Branch Kota, Rajasthan and Draft Tripartite Agreement Ex.C-6 was executed between the parties. The complainant was allotted Modern Apartment No.6FL/0604, Block-Y in the above said project of the opposite parties, vide allotment letter dated 24.06.2016 Ex.C-7. Handing/Taking Over Instructions and Statement of Account were issued, vide letter dated 27.02.2017, Ex.C-

8 (colly.). As per Statement of Account total amount due was shown as 40,97,467/-. Against it, a total sum of 35,53,475/- stood paid by the complainant as on 27.02.2017 and rebate of 25,700/- was given to him. Balance amount payable was shown as 5,43,992/-. As per Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Clearance Letter dated 09.06.2017 Ex.R-15 (colly.), the complainant has made full payment towards the price of the unit and all the requisite documents were also submitted by him to the opposite parties. As per Clause-10 of letter Ex.C-3, the unit was expected to be ready for handing over by March, 2014. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the unit within that period. The possession was delivered on 06.07.2017, vide Handing/Taking Over Certificate Ex.C-8 and Possession Certificate Ex.C-9. The grievances of the complainant are that the possession delivered is incomplete and ineffective, since no Completion/Occupation Certificate has been obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and there is huge delay of more than three years in delivering the possession from the stipulated date fixed for the same. Similar prayer, as made in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, has been made.

48. The opposite parties filed joint reply to the complaint, on the lines of their reply, as given in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the reply filed by the opposite parties were controverted. Similar documents have been filed and similar written arguments have been filed, as discussed in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019.

49. In the present case also, the possession of the flat was delivered by the opposite parties after delay of more than three years from the stipulated date fixed for delivery of possession, without Completion/Occupation Certificate from the competent authorities. Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019 Thus, the possession delivered was incomplete and ineffective and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been duly proved.

50. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.890 of 2019, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount deposited by the complainant up to stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2014 for delivery of possession with effect from 01.04.2014 and on the amount deposited after the expiry of stipulated period for delivery of possession i.e. 01.04.2014 from the respective dates of deposit till the Completion and Occupation Certificate will be obtained by the opposite parties from the competent authorities and handed over to the complainant.

51. The compliance of the orders passed in all the complaints shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 45 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.

52. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of Court cases and the lockdown enforced in the entire country, in view of the advisory issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, to avoid the mass gathering due to threat of COVID-19. (JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT July 31, 2020. (Gurmeet S)

Col Tejendra Singh v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Consumer Complaints against Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

Opposite Parties' (AWHO) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Implications

Col Tejendra Singh v. Army Welfare Housing Organisation

Comments