Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Padma Pandey, Member and Rajesh K. Arya, Member
Dr. Bhavna Sobat Trikha – Complainant
versus
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.134 of 2020
Decided on 31.3.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
Present through video conferencing:
For the Complainant:Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Opp. party in not offering possession of the plot within the committed period causing inordinate delay, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
(2) Complainant was not obliged to retain the allotment letter in the absence of development work.
(3) Cannot make the complainant to wait for an indefinite period.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Now, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 –Section 47 - Complaint has been filed seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the Opp. Party towards purchase of a plot measuring 500 sq. yards in ‘ECO City’, Phase-II, New Chandigarh, Punjab – Opp. party in not offering possession of the plot within the committed period causing inordinate delay, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice - Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, 2019 - Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,13,28,500/- in respect of the plot in question to the Opp. Party - Held that in the face of RTI information, the complainant was not obliged to retain the allotment letter in the absence of development work - Cannot make the complainant to wait for an indefinite period - Allottee is well within his/her right to seek refund of the amount paid - Refund the amount of Rs.1,13,28,500/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a., without deducting any TDS
Held: Instant complaint has been filed under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the Act, 2019), seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the opposite party towards purchase of a plot measuring 500 square yards, located in its project, launched under the name and style ‘ECO City’, Phase-II, New Chandigarh, Punjab. It is the case of the complainant that despite the fact that against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-, she had paid substantial amount of Rs.1,13,28,500/- to the opposite party, as per demands raised by it from time to time, for the period from 28.04.2015 to 22.09.2015, yet, it failed to offer and deliver possession of the said plot latest by 10.08.2018 i.e. within a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 11.08.2015, Annexure C-3, as envisaged under Clause 14 (I) thereof or even thereafter, for want of construction and development activities. Various letters written to the opposite party by the complainant, in the matter, did not yield any result. It has been stated that for making payment towards price of the said plot, the complainant raised housing loan, for which she had paid huge amount of monthly installments.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
As far as objection raised by the opposite party with regard pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned, it may be stated here that since the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,13,28,500/- in respect of the plot in question to the opposite party, which fact is not disputed by it (opposite party), as such, she has the right to file this complaint before this Commission, at Chandigarh, in view of the provisions of Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, 2019, which says that the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore. In this view of the matter, this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Objection taken by the opposite party in this regard stands rejected.
(Paras 1, 4 & 7)
Result: Complaint partly accepted with costs.
ORDER
Raj Shekhar Attri, President—Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (in short the GMADA), is a Statutory Authority, which planned to develop a project named ECO City, Phase-II, New Chandigarh, Punjab and sell the plots/units therein to the general public and undertook to complete the development work in the stipulated period but it failed to do so. As such, the GMADA can also be held liable for deficiency in providing service to the complainant and other prospective buyers, who have invested in the said project, in view of principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, Civil Appeal No.6237 of 1990, decided on 5.11.1993, wherein it was held that when a statutory authority undertakes to construct building or allot houses or building sites to citizens of the State either as amenity or as benefit then it amounts to rendering of service and will be covered in the expression ‘service made available to potential users’ .
1. Instant complaint has been filed under section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the Act, 2019), seeking refund of the amount paid by her to the opposite party towards purchase of a plot measuring 500 square yards, located in its project, launched under the name and style ‘ECO City’, Phase-II, New Chandigarh, Punjab. It is the case of the complainant that despite the fact that against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/-, she had paid substantial amount of Rs.1,13,28,500/- to the opposite party, as per demands raised by it from time to time, for the period from 28.04.2015 to 22.09.2015, yet, it failed to offer and deliver possession of the said plot latest by 10.08.2018 i.e. within a period of 36 months from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 11.08.2015, Annexure C-3, as envisaged under Clause 14 (I) thereof or even thereafter, for want of construction and development activities. Various letters written to the opposite party by the complainant, in the matter, did not yield any result. It has been stated that for making payment towards price of the said plot, the complainant raised housing loan, for which she had paid huge amount of monthly installments.
By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party, in not offering possession of the plot within the committed period or thereafter, thereby causing inordinate delay, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest, compensation etc.
1. The claim of the complainant has been contested by the opposite party, on numerous grounds, inter alia, that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission; that she being investor, did not fall within the definition of “consumer”; that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint; that because disputed questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission under summary proceedings; that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the LOI this consumer complaint is not maintainable; that this complaint is bad for misjoinder/nonjoinder of necessary parties; that since the time of completion of development work mentioned in the LOI was tentative as such time was not to be considered as essence of the contract; that since allotment letter in respect of plot no.276 in the said project has been sent to the complainant on 21.09.2020, Annexure OP-1, and she is not willing to take over possession and has returned the same, as such, she is not entitled to get refund of the amount paid; and that since the project of the opposite party was exempted from the provisions of PAPR Act, as such there was no requirement of o
