Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Suresh Chandra, Member
Narela Shankari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit —Petitioner
versus
Sharad Kumar Gupta & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 2678 to 2680 of 2013
Decided on 16.4.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Surya Kamal Mishra and Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Housing Society cannot retain amount deposited by buyers after failure of housing project.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Co-operatives—Allotment of plots under housing scheme—After execution of sale deeds opposite parties failed to deliver possession of plots—State Commission directed OP to pay amount to complainants on the basis of rates fixed by Collector for land in the area—There is nothing on record to show that any possession was handed over to complainants—Municipal Corporation revoked permission granted to Petitioner Society—Petitioner-Society was not in a position to handover possession to complainants—State Commission rightly passed order for refund of amount deposited by complainants—Revision petitions dismissed. (Paras 7, 14 and 15)
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.
Three separate consumer complaints were filed by Respondent No.1/Complainants before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal, M.P.(for short, ‘District Forum’) alleging deficiency in services on the part of petitioners/opposite parties.
2. Case of complainants is, that Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 is a Housing Cooperative Society, whereas Opposite Party No. 2—Mr. M.R. Singh, Manager (before District Forum)and Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3—Mr.M.S.Baksh was the President/Secretary of the Society, which informed public at large that they intend to develop a colony in Madhya Pradesh and are developing plots having area of 1500 Sq. ft. The complainants became members of that Society and were allotted respective plots. The sale deeds were executed in their favour after they paid the entire amount of sale consideration. After execution of the sale deeds, opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plots. Petitioner was duly served before the District Forum but did not appear. Hence, was proceeded ex parte.
3. Opposite Party No. 2, filed his written statement. Later on he died. The District Forum deleted his name as no legal heirs were brought on its record.
4. As far as respondent no.2 is concerned, he filed the written statement contesting the complaint stating that complaint is barred by limitation. However, he admitted that complainants were allotted plots of the Society. He further pleaded that possession of plots were given to the complainants.
5. District Forum vide its order dated 11.2.2010 dismissed all the complaints on the ground of limitation stating, that sale deed of plots were executed between the parties on 07.09.2002, whereas complaints were filed in the year 2006.
6. All complainants filed separate Appeals (No.1064,1065 and 1066 of 2010) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionm Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (for short, ‘State Commission). None appeared on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.2 before it.
7. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 30.4.2013, allowed all the appeals against the petitioner and respondent no.2. It directed them to pay the amount to the complainants on the basis of the rates fixed by the collector for the land in the area in question within three months.
8. Now, only petitioner has fled present petitions.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.
10. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, that possession of plots has already been given to the complainants. Hence, there is no merit in these revisions.
11. Short question which arise for consideration is as to whether possession of the plots, sale deeds of which has already been executed in favour of the complainants, have been handed to the complainants or not.
12. The State Commission in its impugned order observed ;
“3. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation, stating that the sale deeds were executed on 07.09.2002, while the complaint was filed in the year 2006. There was no occasion for any complaint, till the matter was proceedings smoothly inasmuch as the site plan was also approved by the Municipal Corporation. It was only when the site plan was revoked and the construction was restrained on 09.03.2005, the real cause of action accrued for filling the complaint and from that date complaint filed in the year 2006 was within limitation.
4. The short question that falls for consideration, when now the Society is left with no plot for allotment and the only relief to which these appellants is entitled, is the refund of the amount on the basis of cost of the land prevailing on date as fixed by Collector in the area.
5. Accordingly, we direct the respondents No.1 and 3 to pay the amount to the appellants on the basis of rates fixed by the Collector for the land in the area in question within three months from today, failing which the amount shall bear interest @ 6% per annum after the afflux of three
