STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1. Rakesh Kumar aged about 48 years S/o Sh.Kumar Chand
2. Anita Kumari aged about 45 years W/o Sh.Rakesh Kumar.

    Both R/o H.No.124-A, Sector 42-A, Chandigarh-160036.

……Complainants

V e r s u s

M/s Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office-SCO No.146-148, First Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh-160042, through its Managing Director/Director.

….Opposite Party

BEFORE:       JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                      MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                      MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present through Video Conferencing:-

                      Sh.Sanjiv Gupta KKR, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Tushar Arora, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Maninder Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   The above captioned complaint has been instituted by the complainants seeking directions to the opposite party, to refund the amount of Rs.21,96,941/- paid by them towards purchase of  apartment/flat bearing no.740, 7^th floor, Tower No.04, 2BHK, measuring 1130 square feet (in short the unit), in the project named “SBP Housing Park”, Village Rauni, Tehsil Derabassi, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, total  sale consideration whereof was fixed at Rs.24,40,800/-. It is the case of the complainants that despite making payment of substantial amount, referred to above, which was equal to  about 90% of the total sale consideration of the unit in question, the opposite party failed to deliver possession thereof by 30.06.2015, as envisaged under Clause 4 (a) i of the agreement dated 05.05.2013 (Annexure C-6), for dearth of development activities at the project site and also necessary certificates from the competent Authorities. On the other hand, the opposite party vide letter dated 05.05.2017, Annexure C-20, offered paper possession of the unit, which was challenged by the complainants, by way of sending letters and also the said issue was raised during personal visits to the company but to no avail and, on the other hand, the opposite party started serving notices upon the complainants, asking them to deposit the remaining amount even in the absence of progress of development work at the project site. It has been stated that for making payment towards price of the unit in question, the complainants have also availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.14,40,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala, which stood disbursed to the opposite party, for which they are paying monthly installments.

                   By stating that the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite party, in not delivering possession of the unit by the committed date and on the other hand, offering paper possession after a huge delay, amount to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, the complainants have filed the present case seeking refund of amount paid alongwith interest and litigation expenses.

2.           Their claim has been contested by the opposite party on numerous grounds, inter alia, that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this consumer complaint; that the complainants did not fall within the definition of “consumers” as they are investors; that the complaint filed is barred by time, as the cause of action accrue in favour of the complainants in December 2017, whereas, this complaint has been filed in October 2019; that the complainants were defaulter in making payment towards price of the said unit as a result whereof number of letters/reminders followed by legal notices were sent to them; that the complaint filed is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that complicated questions of fact and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the complaint be relegated to Civil Court; and that no joint application has been filed a