STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH ============

Consumer Complaint No. : CC/88/2020 Date of Institution : 19/03/2020 Date of Decision : 09/06/2022 Ranjan Gupta son of Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Resident of House No.877, Sector 45-A, Burail, Chandigarh, U.T.

…. Complainant Vs.

1. M/s BCL Homes Limited, Company Regd. Office:

Apartment/Flat No.140, Village Dariya, Chandigarh-

160002, through its Directors.

2. Sh. Baldev Bansal, Authorized Signatory/ Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula.

3. Sh. Gopal Bansal, Authorized Signatory/ Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula.

…… Opposite Parties BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER MR.RAJESH K. ARYA MEMBER PRESENT : Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate for Complainant.

: Sh. Kuldeep, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Mohit Garg, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.Ranjan Gupta, Complainant, as he is aggrieved of deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties (in short ‘the Developer’) because there has been an inordinate delay in delivering possession of the 3BHK residential units having an area of 2170 sq. ft. booked by him, in their project namely, Chinar Business Center, for dearth of construction and development activities and the said delay is continuing. The basic sale price of the unit was settled at Rs.18,00,000/-. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as registration amount on 21.04.2012 and the balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was to be paid at the time of deliverance of the possession of the unit. The possession was promised to be delivered within 02 years of the booking. It has been pleaded that despite the fact that considerable amount, stood paid to the Developer, yet, neither construction of the unit has been completed nor possession thereof has been delivered by the committed date or even thereafter. Hence, by means of present complaint, the Complainant has sought directions to the Developer to deliver actual physical possession of the unit alongwith compensation for delay in delivery of possession; mental agony harassment etc.

2. Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3. Opposite Parties contested the Consumer Complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complaint is barred by limitation; the complainant did not fall within the definition of “consumer” as he is a speculator; this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint; construction and development work is going on at the project site and possession of the unit in question is likely to be delivered by the end of year Oct. 2020; possession of the unit in question could not be delivered on account of force majeure circumstances i.e. there has been increase in the cost of construction to the extent of 30%; the developer is entitled to extension of reasonable time for delivery of possession of the unit to the complainant; the Opposite Parties had approached Canara Bank for funding the project, but the Bank played a fraud with the developer by forging some documents and, on the other hand, the said bank initiated proceeding against the developer under SARFASI Act; that despite the fact that the complainant/other allottees were explained that since the claim of the Bank as mortgagee of the constructed units is not tenable, as such, their rights would not be effected, even then some allottees had approached Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh against the developer, whereas, on the other hand, they were having the option to get the issue redressed through arbitration. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Parties led evidence by way of affidavit