Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dinesh Singh, Member
M/s. Teneja Developers and
Infrastructure Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Gora Lal Jhanji —Respondent
First Appeal No.142 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 04/12/2012 in Complaint No. 53/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 31.10.2019
For the Appellant:Mr. Puneet Tuli, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate with Mr. Munish Jhanji and Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for better protection of interests of consumers.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 2(1)(r) – Real estate – Allotment of plot – Denial of possession despite substantial payment – Act is for better protection of interests of consumers – Liability qua Consumer–Complainant initiated the day he made his first deposit with Builder Co., and it continues – Director(s) of Builder Co. shall have to discharge onus to show that they are not liable, along with Builder Co., jointly and severally, on question being raised in executing Forum in execution proceedings. (Paras 12 and 20)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Dinesh Singh, Member—The instant Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, challenging the Order dated 04.12.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 2009 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’.
2. The Appellants, M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd., were the Opposite Parties before the State Commission, and are hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Builder Co.’.
The Respondent, Mr. Gora Lal Jhanji, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Complainant’.
3. Brief facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary rhetoric, are that on 09.12.2005 the Complainant had registered with the Builder Co. for a residential plot admeasuring 500 sq. yrds. and concomitantly deposited Rs. 9,00,000/- with it.
As per the “Advance Registration form TDI Projects” dated 09.12.2005, an “offer of allotment” for a residential plot admeasuring 500 sq. yrds. was to be made to the Complainant by the Builder Co. within “6 months” of the “registration deposit”, and, in case the Builder Co. was “not in a position” to allot a residential plot within 6 months, the Complainant had the “right to withdraw” and ask for “refund” of the amount deposited by him with the Builder Co. “with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of payment of registration deposit”.
No allotment was made by the Builder Co. within 6 months, or even thereafter.
The registration of the plot was cancelled by the Builder Co. on 19.05.2008.
The Complainant “presented” a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali, hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’, on 26.08.2008. The said Complaint was “returned” on 09.03.2009 to the Complainant by the District Forum with the remark that “The value of the plot, the allotment whereof has been sought is Rs. 45.00 lacs which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, SAS Nagar.”
Thereafter the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 2009 before the State Commission on 01.07.2009.
4. We heard arguments from the learned Counsel for both sides, and perused the entire material on record, including inter alia specifically the impugned Order dated 04.12.2012 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal.
5. In the interest of justice, and for adjudication of the Appeal on merit, on facts and law, the self-admitted delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal is condoned.
6. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 04.12.2012 had allowed the Complaint.
We note that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised and well-reasoned Order.
The Award made by the State Commission is reproduced below:
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to succeed and the same is, accordingly accepted with costs. The OPs are directed to allot a plot of 500 square yards to the complainant after receiving the balance amount from him. They shall also pay him Rs. 1 lac as compensation for causing him harassment and adopting unfair trade practice. Litigation costs are assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.
In effect the State Commission has directed the Builder Co. to allot a plot admeasuring 500 sq. yrds. to the Complainant after receiving the balance consideration amount from him, along with compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of litigation of Rs.25,000/-
7. The material chronology is as below:
i. Date of registration by the
Complainant with the Builder
Co. for a residential plot: 09.12.2005
ii. Date of making first deposit
(“registration deposit”) and
amount of the deposit: 09.12.2005
Rs. 9,00,000/-
iii. Expiry of 6 months from the
date of registration: 08.06.2006
(No allotment of a plot was
made by the Builder Co.)
iv. Date of issuance of Change
of Land Use (CLU) by the
Competent Authority to the
Builder Co. in respect of the
project: 22.12.2006
v. Date of cancellation of re
