IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Requisite permission - The fact that Appellant did not have the requisite permission was never brought to the notice of the complainant who believed that project was having a requisite sanction and applied for booking of the residential plot. It certainly amounts to unfair trade practices and also amounts to deficiency in service.
(2) Interest - Where compensation in terms of interest is awarded, no compensation under any other head should be granted.

ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member—The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2018 in CC No. 737 of 2017.

2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant had advertised a project under the name and style of Palm Garden situated at Mullanpur Garibdas, New Chandigarh, Punjab for sale of 250 sq.yds. of residential plot at basic sale price of Rs.46,25,000. The complainant booked a residential plot in the said project. On various dates, undisputedly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.13,87,500/- to the Appellant but no residential plot had been allotted to him despite waiting for several years. The complainant learnt that at the time when the project was advertised, the Appellant did not have requisite permission from the concerned authorities to sell the plot and being aggrieved, they filed the complaint.

3. In its written version, the Appellant had not disputed that at the time when the project was launched and the application for residential plots were invited, they did not have the requisite permission from PAPRA and it was granted to them in the year 2017. It was, however, contended before the State Commission that since the permission had been granted and relate back to the original date and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any unfair trade practice on their part. It was submitted that it was the complainant who had defaulted in making the payment and executing the Builder Buyer Agreement.

4. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and the State Commission after going through the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel and perusing the record found the Appellant deficient in providing the service and, therefore, directed refund of deposited amount to the complainant.

5. The State Commission vide impugned order has disposed of 7 complaints and it had taken the facts of complaint bearing No.659 of 2017 titled as Veena Ghai and Anr. Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. as a lead case and all these 7 complaints were taken for consideration together by the State Commission because the facts and circumstances in all these cases were identical except few things like dates and amounts. It has held as under:—

11. There is no dispute that a plot was sold to the complainants in a project propagated and marketed by the opposite party, against sale consideration of Rs.43.75 lacs. An amount of Rs.13,12,500/- was received by the opposite party from the complainants, as booking amount, which was acknowledged vide receipt dated 03.10.2011 Annexure C-1. The payment made was 30% of the total sale consideration, for a plot measuring 250 square yards, in the project named ‘Palm Springs, Mullanpur, Punjab. Thereafter, it is an admitted fact that as per demands raised by the opposite parties,

Thereafter, the complainants again made payment of Rs.9,00,000/-. There is no dispute that when this complaint was filed, the complainants had already paid an amount of Rs.23,62,500/-. There is nothing on record to show that by that time, before grant of exemption from the provisions of applicability of PAPRA, any permission was available with the opposite party, to sell the project.

It is specifically brought to our notice, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the complainants that as per Guidelines to launch project in the mega housing project, (Palm Garden situated in mega housing project), it is not open to the project proponent like the opposite party to sell the project to general public without getting proper sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities. Condition no.4 of the said Guidelines reads thus:—

“4. Conditions for grant of concessions:—

……….

The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout/zoni