STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Consumer Complaint No.3 of 2022

Date of Institution:12.01.2022 Reserved on :08.12.2022 Date of decision :02.01.2023 Mandeep Sharma aged about 34 years, son of Pawan Kumar, resident of House No.297, V.P.O. Manauli, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-

140306.

..….Complainant

Versus

1. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab, through its Chief Administrator.

2. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Punjab, through its Estate Officer (IT City), Sector 83 Alphla, Block-B, Mohali, Punjab. Email : www.gmada.gov.in

.…Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

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. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. N.S. Vashisht, Advocate

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:

The complainant-Mandeep Sharma has filed the present complaint under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the "Act") against the opposite parties (in short "OPs") with the averments/grievance that he applied for allotment of residential plot

1

C.C. No.3 of 2022 2 measuring 256.66 square yards in A category at 750 Plots Scheme (IT City, Mohali) SAS Nagar for his personal use and necessity vide application Form No.2851 dated 06.08.2016 which was submitted with the acknowledgment exhibited as Ex.C-2 (colly). The complainant was successful in the draw of lots held on 21.09.2016 and letter of intent dated 15.11.2016 was issued exhibited as Ex.C-3. He was allotted plot No.1026, Sector 83, Alphla, Block-B, Measuring 256.66 square yards vide allotment letter dated 09.06.2020 exhibited as Ex.C-4. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant paid all due installments as per the terms and conditions of the letter of intent issued by the OPs and paid total amount of Rs.51,34,136/- alongwith taxes, cess, etc. after availing 5% rebate as per the terms and conditions of the OPs. The copy of payment ledger/payment receipts dated 03.01.2022 as downloaded from the official website of the OPs is exhibited as Ex.C-5.

2. It is further mentioned that as per Clause 15 of letter of intent (in short 'LOI'), the physical possession of the plot was to be handed over to the allottee within a period of one year from the date of issuance of LOI. An assurance was also given by the OPs regarding timely delivery of the possession of the plot but still possession was not handed over inspite of depositing all the installments. The complainant visited on a number of occasions to the office of the OPs and enquired about the date of delivery of possession of the said plot but still there was no response. It is further mentioned that as per Clause 15 of LOI, the possession of the plot was to be offered latest by 14.11.2017, but

2

C.C. No.3 of 2022 3 still it was not offered within the said period as agreed in the LOI. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs and also 'unfair trade practice' on the ground that there was a delay of more than two years and six months, the complainant was liable to claim interest on the deposited entire amount and interest @18% per annum as per Clause 5(i) of the LOI and also penal interest as per Clause 4 of LOI.

3. The prayer in the complaint is to issue direction to the OPs to pay interest @18% per annum for the delayed period of two years and six months and 25 days on the amount so deposited with the OPs i.e. Rs.51,34,136/- as per the terms and conditions of the LOI as well as allotment letter dated 09.06.2020 issued to the complainant and also that the OPs are charging interest @18% on delayed payment of installment as per Clause 5(i) of LOI and Clause 4 of LOI issued by the OPs. Further a prayer has also been made to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for dragging the complainant to unnecessary litigation to file the complaint before this Commission.

4. The complaint was admitted vide order dated 17.01.2022 and notice was issued to the OPs for 03.03.2022. Thereafter a written reply was filed and rejoinder was also filed and the case was adjourned on a number of occasions. Ultimately the arguments were raised by the counsel for the complainant as well as OPs and by hearing the oral arguments raised by counsel for the parties and also by considering the

3

C.C. No.3 of 2022 4 documents available on the file and specially the contents of complaint and reply thereof and the case was kept reserved on 08.12.2022.

5. Mr. R.S. Sidhu Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the issue involved in the present complaint is squarely covered by the decision delivered by this Commission in

Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 titled as Parmjit Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another, decided on 30.09.2019 wherein the same project was there and plot was allotted under the same scheme. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that as per Clause 15 of the LOI, the possession of the plot was to be handed over within a period of one year from the date of issuance of LOI and possession of the plot was to be offered latest by 14.11.2017 but still possession was not offered within said period. This act of OPs amounts to 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs and also amounts to 'unfair trade practice'. Learned counsel further submits that the State of Punjab had already formulated a policy dated 15.02.2017 during the pendency of CWP No.4108 of 2016 titled as Raj Krishan and another Vs. State of Haryana and others (Ex.C-8). The complainant was entitled for interest @18% per annum. Learned counsel has further submitted that same matter had already been decided by the Hon'ble National Commission in F.A. No.370, 371, 372, 695 of 2020, decided on 28.07.2021 (Ex.C-9). At the end, it has been submitted that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by another decision in Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 titled as Parmjit Singh Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development

4

C.C. No.3 of 2022 5

Authority and another, decided on 30.09.2019 of this Commission and accordingly the complaint be allowed in the same terms.

6. Reply to the complaint has been filed by the OPs wherein certain preliminary objections have been raised. It has been submitted by Mr. N.S. Vashisht Advocate, learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action arisen to the complaint and the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that the delay has occurred on account of non issuing of amended Environment Clearance by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. The intimation in this regard was informed to the General Public by way of different notice dated 14.06.2019 as published in "The Tribune" English Newspaper. Thereafter, on receipt of amended Environment Clearance on 28.03.2019, the development activities could be undertaken by the authority and on completion of development work at the site a number of draw of lots were conducted/held on 20.12.2019. The allotment letters of the plots could not be issued immediately thereafter due to outbreak of Covid-19 and subsequently lockdown was imposed by the Government. The complainant was issued allotment letter dated 09.06.2020 and the possession was also offered vide letter dated 09.06.2020. As per Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the complainant was bound to take possession of the plot within a period of 90 days. Learned counsel further submits that conveyance deed of the plot was also executed in favour of the complainant on 24.08.2020 and as such it was not a case of

5

C.C. No.3 of 2022 6

'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs and complainant is not entitled for compensation as well as interest. Learned counsel also submits that as per the provisions of the Act, the complaint was required to be filed by the complainant only within a period of two years from the stipulated date of possession i.e. 14.11.2017 and not beyond 14.11.2019 but said complaint was not filed within said period. The complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

7. Learned counsel also submits that after accepting the possession of the plot and on execution of conveyance deed of the plot, the complainant has raised the issue of delay in delivery of the possession whereas he has already accepted the possession offered to him. The complainant was also at liberty to refuse the allotment of plot if not interested and could have sought refund within a period of 30 days of issue of allotment letter and as such the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct by alleging delay in delivery of possession of plot. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. At the end, learned counsel for the OPs submits that the plot in dispute was allotted to the complainant @Rs.20,000/- per square yards whereas the current market value of the plot is about Rs.75,000/- per square yard and complainant cannot be said to be sufferer in any manner and he is not entitled for any interest in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of case Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Syndicate Bank (2007) 6 SCC 711.

8. Rejoinder to the written statement has also been filed by the complainant wherein arguments raised by learned counsel for the OPs

6

C.C. No.3 of 2022 7 have been rebutted.

9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. I have also carefully perused the contents of the complaint, reply thereof, terms and conditions of the LOI, Allotment Letter and other documents available on the file and also the judgment Ex.C-6 passed by this Commission.

10. Facts of the case as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint, reply thereof filed by the OPs and rejoinder to the reply are not in dispute. Admittedly, OPs launched a scheme for allotment of 750 residential plots under name and style of IT City at SAS Nagar (Mohali). The complainant applied for allotment of 256.66 square yards plot in the said scheme by paying the amount which was duly received and thereafter plot was allotted vide allotment letter dated 09.06.2020. As per the terms and conditions of the LOI, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within a period of one year from the date of issuance of LOI, as per Clause 15 thereof but the OPs have failed to deliver the possession within said period. However, a stand has been taken by the OPs that the delay had occurred for want Environmental Clearance and for that purpose the Public Noitce was also issued by way of Publication published in the newspaper informing the Public/allottees that the draw of plots would be carried out after the development and clearance of Environmental Certificate. The State Commission in CC No.318 of 2019 has allowed the complaint of the same nature vide order dated 30.09.2019 by holding that the complainant had paid the amount still there was a delay in delivery of the possession. This action has resulted

7

C.C. No.3 of 2022 8 into mental agony and harassment and complainant was required to be compensated for the same. The relevant portion of the order passed by the State Commission in said CC No.318 of 2019 in para 18 and 19 are reproduced as under:-

"18. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to delivery of possession of the plot allotted to him, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority. The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e. 13/18.01.2018 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot. For the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, he is also required to be suitably compensated. So far as the prayer of the complainant regarding rent charges is concerned, it needs to be mentioned that there is no such contract between the parties to pay rent charges. However, since the compensation for delay in delivery of Consumer Complaint No.318 of 2019 15 possession is going to be awarded, therefore, the same will take care of that prayer of the complainant.

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

i) to deliver possession of the plot allotted to the complainant, complete in all respects, along with all the agreed basic amenities and Completion/Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority and to execute Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant;

ii) to pay compensation for delay in delivery of possession at the rate of 12% on the amount deposited by the complainant with effect from the stipulated date for delivery of possession i.e.

8

C.C. No.3 of 2022 9 13/18.01.2018 till actual and physical delivery of possession of the plot, ordered above; and

iii) to pay composite litigation expenses and compensation for the mental and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.

11. It is also not denied that the order passed by the State Commission in said CC No.318 of 2019 was challenged before the Hon'ble National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Dehi in F.A. No.371 of 2020 by the OP and the appeal was disposed of by modifying the rate of interest only with the following directions as mentioned in para 14 of the order which is reproduced as under:-

"14. We are of the considered opinion that, in the facts and specificities of the matters at hand, rate of interest of 12% per annum on 25% of the total consideration amount and rate of interest of 10% per annum on rest of the amount (over and above 25% of the total consideration amount) deposited by the complainants with the development authority, from the respective stipulated dates of delivery of possession till the respective dates of actual delivery of possession, is reasonable and equitable, and would meet the ends of justice.

The respective Awards made by the State Commission are modified to this extent."

The Hon'ble National has only modified the order passed by this Commission in C.C. No.318 of 2019 by changing the rate of interest. Accordingly, in the present case the rate of interest is only @9% per annum on the deposited amount from the agreed date of possession i.e. 14.11.2017, as per letter of intent (Ex.C-3), till the date of offer of possession i.e. 09.06.2020 would be reasonable to meet the ends of

9

C.C. No.3 of 2022 10 justice.

12. Accordingly, the present complaint is also allowed with the following directions to the OPs :-

(i) to pay compensation for causing delay in delivery of possession i.e. interest @9% per annum on the amount so deposited by the complainant from the date of agreed date of delivery of possession i.e. 14.11.2017 till the date of actual physical possession i.e. 09.06.2020: and

(ii) to pay lump sum amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.55,000/-.

The OPs are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing the complainant would be entitled to interest @18% per annum on the deposited amount from the dates as referred above.

13. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-

19.

(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)

PRESIDENT

January 02, 2023.

MM

10