Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member, Rajesh Kumar Arya, Member, Preetinder Singh, Member
Dr. Sandeep Kumar and Anr. – Appellants
versus
M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal No.98 of 2022 and
Appeal No.99 of 2022
Decided on 3.1.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Somesh Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vishal Singal, Advocate proxy for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal - Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat / Plot – Delayed Possession – Compensation awarded, delayed payment interest – Justified - It was observed by the Ld. Lower Commission that in the face of reason that there was no Buyer’s Agreement and already substantial amount (around 90%) stood paid, OP/respondent adopted unfair trade practice and is also guilty of providing deficient service to the complainants/ appellants – Thus, the appellants were also given the relief of not paying any delayed payment interest to the respondent on the payments already made and quashed the demand of Rs.1,20,815/- as maintenance charges which were required to be paid by the appellants - The Ld. Lower Commission also granted Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation to the appellants on account of mental agony and harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation. Further, respondent has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the appellants for filing a frivolous application before the Ld Lower Commission – On facts, that the relief granted by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite reasonable and in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case – Appeal dismissed.
Held: It was observed by the Ld. Lower Commission that in the face of reason that there was no Buyer’s Agreement and already substantial amount (around 90%) stood paid, OP/respondent adopted unfair trade practice and is also guilty of providing deficient service to the complainants/ appellants. Consequently, the Ld. Lower Commission ordered restoration of allotment of the Unit and quashed the cancellation/termination letters issued by the respondent. The allotment was ordered to be restored, without demanding any interest on the payments already made. With regard to payment of GST, a rebate of 4% was ordered to be given to the appellants. The appellants were also given the relief of not paying any delayed payment interest to the respondent on the payments already made and quashed the demand of Rs.1,20,815/- as maintenance charges which were required to be paid by the appellants. The Ld. Lower Commission also granted Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation to the appellants on account of mental agony and harassment besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation. Further, respondent has been directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the appellants for filing a frivolous application before the Ld Lower Commission.
After going through the contents of appeal and the order passed, we are satisfied that the relief granted by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite reasonable and in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case. We find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. Accordingly the order of the Ld. Lower Commission being perfectly justified, is upheld.
For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs. [Paras 7 to 9]
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Padma Pandey, Presiding Member—This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos.98 of 2022 titled as Dr. Sandeep Kumar & Another Vs. M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and No.99 of 2022 titled as Devanshi Vs. M/s Amazing Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., involving identical questions of facts and law, and both filed against common order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘the Ld. Lower Commission) allowing both complaints bearing No.CC165/2021 filed by the complainant Dr. Sandeep Kumar & another and Consumer Complaint No.187/2021 filed Devanshi against the same Opposite Party. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from appeal No.98 of 2022 titled as Dr. Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs. M/s Amazing Real estate Pvt. Ltd.
2. As per facts in the complaint, the complainants allured by rosy pictures shown through advertisements by the Opposite Party, on 3.10.2016 applied for a flat of 1355 sq. ft., Unit No.B607, 6th Floor at Tower B in its Project Joynest Moh 1, PR-7 Airport Ring Road, Near Aerocity, SAS Nagar (Mohali) against basic sale price of Rs.30,00,000/-. The said project belonged to Sushma Group and the complainants opted for construction linked payment plan, but, neither the OP executed buyer’s agreement with the complainants nor issued the allotment letter dated 23.2.2017, reference of which was given in various letters received from the OP. The grouse of the complainant in consumer complaint was that despite making payment of Rs.31,96,081/- on various dates against basic sale price of the Unit of Rs.30,00,000/-, still OP vide possession reminder dated 10.10.2020 raised total outstanding demand of Rs.6,09,887/- on account of different heads. The complainants met the officials of the OP a number of times and tried to persuade them that they have already paid the basic cost of the Unit/flat plus other charges and were ready to deposit the last installment payable at the time of possession as well, provided at least the project be completed with basic facilities. It was alleged that at the time of booking i.e. 3.10.2016, OP did not even have basic approvals to start the project. However, instead of looking into the grievances of the complainants, OP started sending threatening letters and sent possession termination letter dated 12.11.2020 despite the fact that the complainants were regularly paying the installments. The construction work was in initial stage but installments were almost paid by the end of year 2018 but still complainants received termination notice dated 26.3.2018 and then cancellation of Allotment vide letter dated 19.5.2018. Thereafter, OP vide possession cancellation letter dated 18.12.2020 raised total outstanding demand of Rs.6,33,111/- from the complainants and ultimately vide letter dated 14.1.2021 intimated possession cancellation of the allotment. The complainants sent legal notice dated 12.2.2021 to the OP calling upon it to withdraw the letter dated 14.1.2021 and to execute Buyer’s Agreement clearly stipulating therein by which date project would be complete in all respects, but, to no effect. It was further alleged that the project in question, complete in all respects, was to be handed over by the OP within 24 months from the date of booking, but, it failed to do so and even has not provided the various promised basic amenities, as detailed in its brochure. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking restoration of allotment of the Unit, hand over possession of the Flat, complete in all respects and other allied reliefs.
3. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission by filing reply admitting the fact of allotment of Apartment/Unit, in question, to the complainants. However, it stated that the project is RERA registered and was to be completed by 29.7.2022
