SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Veena Jain – Petitioner
versus
Country Colonisers
Private Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.495 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 05/04/2021 in Appeal No. 93/2021 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 4.11.2024

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bharat Sood, Advocate (Through VC)
For the Respondents:Mr. Arjun Nanda and Ms. Deb Deepa Mazumdar, Advocates

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 69 – Housing project – Deficiency in service/Unfair trade Practice – Delay in completion & handing over actual physical possession of apartment – Refund of amount – Complaint not time barred – Both for a below went wrong, District Commission in dismissing the complaint & State Commission in dismissing the appeal on grounds of complaint being time barred – Orders of Forum & State Commission cannot be sustained & same set aside – OP-Respondent directed to refund the entire amount paid by Complainant-petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. date of each deposit till date of refund.(Para 16)

Result: Complaint allowed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, against the order dated 05.04.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 93 of 2021 in which order dated 02.03.2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 1457 of 2020 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 05.04.2021 and 02.03.2021 of the State Commission and District Forum respectively.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3) were Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the State Commission and Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 before the District Forum.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 02.08.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments on 23.01.2023 and 22.09.2023 (Petitioner) and 23.12.2022 (Respondent-1) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

(i) Petitioner applied for an Apartment in Group Housing Project namely “Wave Gardens”, Mohali of the Respondents at the cost of Rs.1,32,63,750/-. Provisionally, Petitioner was allotted Hibiscus, Apartment No. 001, Ground Floor, Type Duplex measuring 3275 sq. ft.

(ii) As per Sub-clause 5.1 of Clause 5 of Apartment Allotte(s) Agreement dated 07.11.2012, Respondent were to develop the said project within 30 months along with six months’ grace period from the date of the said agreement and the possession of the Apartment was to be delivered on or before 06.11.2015.

(iii) Payments made by the Petitioner to the Respondent on the following dates:

Date

Amount

Mode of Payment

01.08.2012

Rs.2,00,000/-

Cheque No. 191975

08.11.2013

Rs.27,34,719/-

RTGS

14.02.2014

Rs.13,52,748/-

Cheque No. 276465

24.05.2014

Rs.5,00,000/-

RTGS

17.07.2014

Rs.5,00,000/-

RTGS

01.09.2014

Rs.2,83,369/-

Cheque No. 306235

01.09.2014

Rs.7,90,000/-

Cheque No. 234386

09.09.2014

Rs.60,000/-

Cheque No. 181791

09.09.2014

Rs.1,30,000/-

Cheque No. 306237

09.09.2014

Rs.3,00,000/-

Cheque No. 234387

Total

Rs.68,50,836/-

 

(iv) In December, 2015, Petitioner visited the site and found no development which was contrary to Sub-clause 5.1 of clause 5 of the Apartment Allotte(s) Agreement and Respondents failed to obtain the Completion Certificate/Occupation Certificate.

(v) On 15.01.2016, Petitioner received a letter from the Respondents which was issued in routine manner asking to deposit a further amount of Rs.42,28,062.94/-, for which Respondent told Petitioner to avoid it.

(vi) Petitioner kept on waiting for about two years for the completion of her apartment but was shocked to receive another letter dated 07.07.2018 stating Respondents were giving one-time interest waiver scheme to the Petitioner on the outstanding payable amount to which Respondent informed the Petitioner that she need not to pay any amount till the completion and handing over the actual physical possession of the apartment.

(vii) In January, 2020, Petitioner asked the Respondents for the refund of amount along with up to date interest which was assured by the Respondents also to return the amount within a period of four months but due to lock down staring from the month of March, 2020, all communications between the Petitioner and the Respondents stopped.

(viii) On 06.07.2020, Petitioner received a letter from Respondents for handing over possession of the apartment, for which the Respondents had already agreed to refund amount in the month of January, 2020.

(ix) On 07.08.2020, Petitioner f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top