Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Jasbir Singh, President, Mr. Dev Raj and Mrs. Padma Pandey, Members
GURPREET SINGH, ABHISHEK LAL - Appellant
Versus
PUMA RELATORS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Consumer Complaint Nos. 132 and 133 of 2015.
Decided on : 26-10-2015
Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ramnik Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 17 - COMPLAINT - MAINTAINABILITY - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - WHETHER CONSUMER FORA IS BOUND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE ARBITRATOR - WHETHER REMEDY UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE ACT IS IN DEROGATION OF ANY OTHER LAW - WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO REFUND AFTER OFFER OF POSSESSION BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES - WHETHER DEVELOPMENT AND THE BASIC AMENITIES WERE COMPLETE AT THE SITE BEFORE OFFERING POSSESSION - WHETHER THE OPPOSITE PARTIES WERE DEFICIENT IN RENDERING SERVICE AND INDULGED INTO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTISE - WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY HIM WITH INTEREST - WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO ANY COMPENSATION OR NOT.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a consumer, had booked a residential plot with the opposite parties, a real estate developer. The complainant paid a substantial amount towards the purchase price of the plot. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated time frame. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum seeking refund of the amount paid by him along with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and costs of litigation. The opposite parties contended that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as there was an arbitration clause in the plot buyer's agreement. They also contended that the complainant was not a consumer as he had booked the plot for investment purposes and not for personal use. The opposite parties further contended that the development and basic amenities were complete at the site before offering possession and that they were not deficient in rendering service or indulging in unfair trade practices.
Finding of the Court:
The Consumer Forum held that the complaint was maintainable before it as the remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. The Forum also held that the complainant was a consumer as he had booked the plot for his personal use and not for investment purposes. The Forum further held that the development and basic amenities were not complete at the site before offering possession and that the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service and indulging in unfair trade practices. The Forum directed the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest, pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and pay costs of litigation.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was maintainable before the Consumer Forum in light of the arbitration clause in the plot buyer's agreement? 2. Whether the complainant was a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 3. Whether the development and basic amenities were complete at the site before offering possession? 4. Whether the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service and indulging in unfair trade practices? 5. Whether the complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid by him along with interest? 6. Whether the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Therefore, the existence of an arbitration clause in the plot buyer's agreement did not bar the complainant from filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum. 2. A person who books a residential plot for his personal use is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, even if he has not yet taken possession of the plot. 3. The development and basic amenities were not complete at the site before offering possession. The opposite parties failed to obtain all the necessary sanctions and approvals from the competent authorities. Therefore, the offer of possession was not a valid and legal possession. 4. The opposite parties were deficient in rendering service and indulging in unfair trade practices by offering a paper possession to the complainant before completing the basic amenities and without obtaining the necessary sanctions and approvals. 5. The complainant was entitled to refund of the amount paid by him along with interest. The opposite parties were directed to refund the amount with compound interest quarterly @12% from the respective dates of deposit. 6. The complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. The opposite parties were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Final Decision: The Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant along with interest, pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, and pay costs of litigation.
ORDER
Mr. Dev Raj and Mrs. Padma Pandey, Members - Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two complaints bearing No. 132/2015 and 133/2015, referred to above. Since the facts involved in the two complaints are almost identical, the facts are being culled from complaint case No. 132 of 2015 titled as 'Sh. Gurpreet Singh v. PUMA Realtors Private Limited and Another'.
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Ms. Poonam Chaudhary vide application dated 17.02.2011 applied for allotment of a residential plot, in the project of the Opposite Parties and paid Rs. 6,50,000/- as booking amount vide cheque dated 10.02.2011, for which receipt dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure C-1) was issued by the Opposite Parties. Subsequently, she was allotted Plot No. 42, in the residential project "IREO Hamlet" approximately measuring 251.51 square yards, Sector 98, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab vide provisional allotment letter dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure C-2), along with Time Linked Payment Plan (Annexure C-3). Plot Buyer's Agreement (Annexure C-4) was executed between Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, and the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh on 02.08.2011. The basic sale price of the plot was Rs. 57,84,730/-. The allottee was also required to pay Rs. 1275.10 per square yard of the plot area towards External Development Charges (EDC) and Rs. 350/- per square yard towards IFMS. As per Clause 21.2 of General Clauses of Plot Buyer's Agreement, the Opposite Parties were to develop the said project by laying roads, water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines etc. Further as per Clause 11.1, the Opposite Parties were liable to handover physical possession of the plot within 24 months with a grace period of 6 months i.e. not later than 30 months from the date of execution of the Agreement. Thus, the Opposite Parties were to deliver possession of the plot latest by February 2014 i.e. 30 months from August 2011.
3. In August 2011, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for purchase of a plot exclusively for the purpose of his residence and for his family members, by constructing house thereon. He came to know that Plot No. 42, which was selected by him had already been sold to one Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, who agreed to sell the same to the complainant. All the payments made by Ms. Poonam Chaudhary to the Opposite Parties were repaid to her by the complainant and, as such, all rights and interests in the plot were transferred in favour of the complainant, by the Opposite Parties, vide endorsement dated 04.08.2011. The complainant paid Rs. 9,47,885/- vide receipt dated 27.05.2013 (Annexure C-7). By May 2013, the Opposite Parties had already received Rs. 27,63,480/-. Since as per the Plot Buyer's Agreement, possession of plot was to be handed over by February 2014, the complainant waited patiently for demand of further payments and delivery of possession. Thereafter the Opposite Parties kept silent and did not make any demand. The complainant visited the site to see the development, but was surprised to see that it was being done at a snail speed. In the meantime, it came to the notice of the complainant that the layout plans in respect of the project in question had not been got finalised by the Opposite Parties till 2013. It further came to the notice of the complainant that revised layout plans of the projects of the Opposite Parties for Sectors 86, 97, 98, 99, 105 and 106 were revised and approved by the Chief Town Planner, PUDA, vide letter No. 2614 CTP(PB) dated 15.05.2013 only and that too, subject to various conditions, out of which, the Opposite Parties failed to comply many of them and, as such, they were not in a position to obtain No Due Certificate including other certificates from the competent authorities.
4. It was stated that possession of the plot was not offered by the stipulated date i.e. 02.02.2014. By 13.08.2014, the total amount of Rs. 46,59,247.90 had been paid by the complainant out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 57,84,730/- yet possession o
