Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Shri J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member and Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
MAVINDER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RKM HOUSING LIMITED - Respondent
Consumer Complaint No.712 to 715 & 799 of 2017
Decided on : 21-05-2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of an arbitration clause in the MOU does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, and the OPs were found to be deficient in service for not completing the project and not obtaining the occupancy certificate.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Residential Plot - Section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 - 12, 14, 17 of PAPRA Act, 1995 - The court found that the complainants were consumers as they had invested in residential plots for personal use. The existence of an arbitration clause in the MOU did not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The court held that the OPs were deficient in service for not completing the project and not obtaining the occupancy certificate. The court ordered the OPs to refund the entire deposited amounts with interest, pay compensation for mental harassment, and cover litigation expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants had invested in residential plots for personal use and alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs for not completing the project and not delivering possession within the scheduled time. The OPs contested the complaints, claiming that the complainants were not consumers and that there was an arbitration clause in the MOU.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants were consumers and that the existence of an arbitration clause did not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The court held that the OPs were deficient in service for not completing the project and not obtaining the occupancy certificate.
Issues: The main issues were whether the complainants were consumers, the effect of the arbitration clause, and whether the OPs were deficient in service for not completing the project and obtaining the occupancy certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants were consumers and that the existence of an arbitration clause did not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The court also held that the OPs were deficient in service for not completing the project and not obtaining the occupancy certificate.
Final Decision: The court ordered the OPs to refund the entire deposited amounts with interest, pay compensation for mental harassment, and cover litigation expenses.
ORDER
J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member - Since the above referred complaints are based upon common controversy of facts and law, hence they can be disposed of together by means of common order, which shall be pronounced by us in main complaint no.712 of 2017 titled as Manvinder Singh v. M/s RKM Housing Limited & others.
Facts of Complaint No.712 of 2017:
2. The complainant has instituted this complaint under section 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act") against OPs on the averments that he applied for residential plot in the project of OP no.1 namely "RKM City" M/s RKM Housing Limited, site office behind CGC Landran, Sector 112 SAS Nagar Mohali for his personal use as well as for his other family members. The total cost of the plot was Rs. 20,40,000/-. It is further averred that memorandum of understanding (in short "MOU") was executed between the parties on 17.11.2010. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 9,20,000/- with OP no.1, vide receipt bearing no.647 of 19.11.2010. He further deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- on 27.11.2010 and 17.01.2011 respectively and after receipt of the above said payments, OP no.1 issued receipt no.714 & 887 dated 27.11.2010 and 17.01.2011 in his favour. After receipt of above said amounts from him, OPs executed agreement to sell with him on 28.12.2012, wherein total cost of the plot was Rs. 20,40,000/- @ Rs. 10,200/- per square yard inclusive of development charges. OPs issued allotment letter bearing no.RKM-457/112/2012 dated 28.12.2012 in his favour, allotting plot no.95 measuring 200 sq. yard to him for a total consideration of Rs. 20,40,000/-. The complainant applied for loan from ICICI Bank Limited and deposited the amount of Rs. 7,06,000/- with OP no.1 against receipt no.3464 dated 11.01.2013. OPs issued possession letter bearing no. RKM/457/2013 dated 22.10.2013 to complainant. OP no.1 sent letter bearing no. RKM-457/2015/112 dated 16.03.2015 to him and demanded the balance payment of Rs. 2,04,000/- towards development charges within 25 days from the receipt of the said letter. The complainant enquired about the sale deed of the plot from them, but to no effect. The complainant came to know that one Mukesh Kumar sought information under RTI Act 2005 from GMADA Mohali and he wrote a letter dated 11.01.2016, whether OP no.1 has completed all the amenities i.e. road, sewerage, treatment plant, electricity and water required for handing over the possession, whether promoter has applied with regard to completion certificate or not, whether promoter has submitted any revised layout plan in their office or not and whether promoter has submitted any revised layout plan in their office or not. GMADA intimated to Mukesh Kumar, vide letter no.GMADA/M.E./(Elec)-2016/671 dated 22.03.2016, in response to his letter dated 16.03.2016, that OP no.1 has not applied for any layout plan or drawing in their office. In response to letter dated 03.03.2016 of Mukesh Kumar,, the office of GMADA sent letter no.GMADA/DTP/A-1/2016/1210 dated 30.03.2016 to Mukesh Kumar along with copy of conditional licence to develop a colony along with terms and conditions and intimated that till date, OP no.1 has not applied for renewal of licence for developing their colony in Sector 112 Mohali. OP no.1 has violated the terms and conditions, as laid down by GMADA Mohali. The complainant visited the spot in first week of ay 2015, in last week of December 2016 and in last week of June 2017 and found no development by OP at the site. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by not developing the project and for not handing over the possession of the plot within time, despite receipt of payments and in not holding the requisite permissions from the competent authorities. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OPs be directed to refund entire deposited amount of Rs. 18,36,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of thei
