STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

EMAAR INDIA LIMITED Office No 40, Central plaza, Sector 105, SAS NAGAR,

MOHALI Punjab through its Authorised Signatory Subrat Pradhan

…Appellant/opposite party

V e r s u s

RADHIKA SAREEN Wife of Sh Mukesh Sareen Resident of C-139, Sector 50,

Noida Uttar Pradesh-201301

….Respondent /complainant

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

MR. RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER

Present:- Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

In the case in hand, the opposite party-Emaar India Limited has

come up in this appeal, assailing the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the

District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which, an application for

amendment filed during pendency of consumer complaint bearing no.131 of

2021 was allowed by it and the respondent-complainant was allowed to add

relief of delivery of possession of the plot in the relief clause, instead of seeking

refund of the amount paid.

2.

The record of the District Commission was requisitioned.

Factual scenario:-

3.

In the original consumer complaint bearing no.131 of 2021, the

complainant-Ms.Radhika Sareen (hereinafter called as the respondent) had

entered into agreement to sell dated 04.07.2007 in respect of a plot bearing

no.101, measuring 400 square yards in the project of the appellant launched

under the name and style “Pinewoord Park”, Sector 108, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Total sale consideration of the said plot was fixed at Rs.53,71,332/-, which

stood paid by the complainant for the period from 06.09.2006 to 06.08.2009,

Appeal No.

: 297 of 2023

Date of Institution

:

08.09.2023

Date of Decision

:

24.11.2023

yet, possession of the said plot was not delivered to her, despite the fact that

as per clause 8 of the said agreement, it was to be delivered latest by

03.07.2010. When neither possession of the plot was delivered nor delayed

compensation was paid nor amount paid was refunded, the complainant filed

consumer complaint bearing no.131 of 2021 before the District Commission,

wherein, in para no.6 she stated that since the entries of the project in

question stood sealed by the Forest Department for want of permissions, as

such, the appellant could not deliver possession of the plot in question.

Relevant part of para no.6 is reproduced hereunder:-

“……6. That according to Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer's Agreement,

the O.P. was to deliver the possession of the said plot within two

years from the date of agreement, but not later than three years

from the date of execution of the agreement and accordingly the

possession of the said plot was to be handed over by 03.07.2010.

The complainant visited the office of the opposite party at

Chandigarh in February, 2012 whereby she inquired about the

status of possession but was told that possession has already been

offered in November, 2009 and was shown a letter purported to be

29.11.2009 but when the complainant inquired about the mode of

delivery of the said letter to the complainant, the said official did

not respond to the said query. After great persuasion, the

complainant was able to get a copy of the said letter from the

official. The copy of the letter dated 29.11.2009 is annexed

herewith as Annexure C-5. The said letter dated 29.11.2009 was

only a construction update as it is evident from the contents of the

said letter and the opposite party through the said letter in fact

admits the incomplete development at the project site. The said

letter was merely a construction update and the same has already

been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 140 of

2015 tilted as "Manuj Chhabra Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited"

decided on 05.11.2015 and the said finding has been upheld by

the Hon'ble National Commission. The complainant visited the

project site in 2015 and came to know that the entry points of the

sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document