Statutory authorities controlling housing projects are 'service providers' under consumer law when their actions impact purchaser investments. Furthermore, one-sided agreement clauses placing the entire burden of delay or default on the consumer while insulating the developer constitute unfair trade practices and are unenforceable.

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

The facts, in brief, are that allured by the tall claims and representations of the Opposite Parties, the complainant, booked a unit (Office Space) i.e. Unit No.830, 8th Floor in Tower-C having super area measuring 500 sq. feet in the year 2016 in the WTC Chandigarh Aerocity, Mohali project for a total consideration of ₹33,69,680/-, out of which he paid ₹31,61,828/- (about 95%) as per ledger/payment detailed (Exhibit C-2). It has been stated that the complainant, being a retiree from a repudiated private Bank, had booked the said unit for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment as retirement plan. The opposite parties executed a Developer-Buyer Agreement dated 27.04.2016, Exhibit C-1. As per Clause 4.5 of the Developer-Buyer Agreement, the possession of the unit in question was to be offered within a period of 48 months from the date of execution of the said agreement plus additional grace period of 6 (six) months. After payment of substantial amount, the complainant kept on visiting the Mohali office site of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 to monitor on ground situation but to his disappointment, at every visit, he could not see any construction work being initiated and on enquiring about the current status, the opposite parties time and again promised that things are under control and on track, thereby giving assurance of the completion of the project within the guaranteed time period as per the agreement. In December 2020, the complainant met with the opposite parties at Mohali site office and expressed his dismay since the project had not witnessed any development at all, however, he was assured that things would be on track by March 2021. The complainant consistently sought details of mandatory approvals including RERA extensions, GMADA dues, building plans and other sanctions but the opposite parties failed to provide any such documents indicating that no approvals existed at the time of booking. In the month of April 2023, the complainant discovered that GMADA had cancelled the entire site for non-payment of dues by the opposite parties and that even the opposite parties’ writ petition (CWP No. 21141/2023) had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Audit reports further revealed siphoning of funds exceeding ₹77 crores by the opposite parties to other projects. Despite repeated requests, neither possession was offered nor refund has been provided, causing severe mental, physical and financial harassment to the complainant. It has been averred that the opposite parties’ conduct of collecting money without approvals, misrepresenting project status, violating RERA mandates, failing to update statutory information and delaying construction, constitutes grave “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practice,” as recognized in precedents such as Kamal Sood vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and Emaar MGF Land Ltd. vs. Karnail Singh. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of ₹31,61,828/- along with interest @18% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till realization; to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for causing financial loss as also the escalation in prices to the complainant, for causing mental and physical harassment and agony to the complainant on account of delay in allotment and possession and for selling the Unit without obtaining any approval/sanctions for the development of the project and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties in not delivering possession of the Unit till date inspite of receiving more than 95% of the total sale consideration; to pay litigation expenses to the tune of ₹2,00,000/- and any other relief which this Hon'ble State Commission may deem fit be also granted to the complainant.

2] It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of admission hearing, Counsel for the complainant submitted that various clauses of the agreement dated 2