In this post we will talk about the consumer complaint against M/S Regent Land Holdings PVT.LTD. The concern regulatory authority keeping the right and wrong of legal suit passed the order in favour of complaint. The respondent was unable to put forward any evidence, fact in support of delay in possession thus the forum ordered the respondent to refund within 30 days.
Factual background
Court name–Punjab and Haryana High Court Complainant :
1.Narinder Pal Singh son of S. Darbara Singh,
- Kulwinder Kaur W/o S. Narinder Pal Singh s/o S. Darbara Singh, both residents of E-977, Gali No.2, Kirpa Nagar, Opposite Dana Mandi, Chheharta, Amritsar.
Respondent:
M/s Regent Land Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Near Hotel Radisson Blue, Airport Road, Amritsar, through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal officer.
First appeal no.- Ex.C-5 on 25/01/2017
Decision on : 20/03/0218
ALSO READ- KAMAL CHATTERJEE & ANR. VS EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. ON 17 MARCH, 2020
Quorum
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
- This complaint has been filedby the complainant seeking refund of 15,86,500 RS. Paid by him, from time to time I.e. from 26/08/2011 to 25/01/2017, towards purchase ofan independent 4 BHK apartment launched by the opposite parties, under name and style ‘Blessing City’ at Airport Road Amritsar.
- Total fixed price where fixed at 39,90,000/-.Complainant argued that despite the fact that substantial amount, referred to above , has been paid as promised that 60% of base price.
ALSO READ- NARINDER PAL SINGH VS M/S REGENT LAND HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. ON 20 MARCH, 2018
- has been stated by the complaint that neither possession of the unit, , was delivered by the stipulated date nor compensation by way of monthly assured return, as promised by the opposite parties, was paid to the complainant.
- Alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the opposite parties as deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, this complaint was filed by the complainant seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver possession of the unit, in question, along with interest, compensation; litigation expenses .
ALSO READ- CONSUMER CASE AGAINST MS COUNTRY COLONISERS FOR DELAY IN POSSESSION
State of facts
- The complainants have instituted this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act1986 (in short the “Act”), against opposite party (OP) on the averments that OP proposed to build a Mega Township residential housing project known as ‘Blessing City’ at Airport Road Amritsar and issued advertisement and brochure in this regard. OP advised and offered them one four BHK apartment in Ebony-300 in the residential project. They were allotted apartment Ebony C-13, 1st floor in the above project by OP. They paid initial amount of Rs.3,99,000/-, being 10% of the basic sale price of the apartment i.e. Rs.39,90,000/- on 26.08.2011 at the time of booking. OP got signatures of complainants on buyers agreement and kept agreement with them on the assurance that the copy of the agreement would be sent by post lateron, but till date, no such agreement has been received by them.
- Since, the terms and conditions for all the units under the Ebony-300 in the said project are the same, therefore, they have placed on record one such copy of the agreement. They opted for construction linked plan. They have paid total amount of Rs.15,86,500/- to OP till date, as per payment plan, which was linked with developing stages of construction. After receiving the installments after commencement of construction, OP neither sent any communication to the complainant about the progress of construction nor issued any demand letter after April 2012. At the time of booking, complainants were informed regarding the finance process to be initiated by it with Punjab National Bank on behalf of complainants. But despite getting various documents signed by the complainants multiple times long time ago, the said finance process was never initiated nor the complainants were informed anything about the reason of delay. As per clause 17 of the agreement, OP was to give the possession within three years from the date of booking/allotment, with all the facilities. Till the date of filing the previous and even the present complaint, there has been no offer of possession by OP.
ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA COMPLAINT AGAINST SUNCITY BUILDCOM LTD
- The project has already been delayed and moreover no development work has been done in the project, which clearly showed that OP would not be able to hand over the possession of the flat in the near future also. The complainants were in dire need of their own residence, but they were put off on one pretext or the other by OP. They served legal notice dated 25.01.2017 upon OP, but to no effect. They visited the site office of OP and corresponded through some letters asking the status of delivering the possession, but no reply was ever given by OP. The same position continued till the year 2016, whereupon the complainants sent legal notice to OP asking for the refund of their money. No compensation, as agreed is being paid by OP to the complainants.
- As per Section 3 of PAPRA Act, 1995, OP was required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building as constructed or is to be constructed, making full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to given inspection on seven day’s notice or demand of the layout of the colony and plan of development works to be executed in a colony, as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. As per Section 5 of PAPRA Act, OP was liable to obtain permission from the competent authority for developing the colony.
- As per Section 9 of PAPRA Act, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers. As per Section 12 of the PAPRA Act, if the builder fails to deliver the possession of the plot/apartment by the specified date, then the builder is liable to refund the amount deposited by the buyer with interest.
ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMAR ESTATES
Finding of the court
As per the contention and evidences presented by both the parties and by the observation of court the complainant had proved his allegation under section 17and 12 of not handing over the possession of unit .on all the above facts complainant deserves to be compensated with the amount paid with interest also for the mental harassment and agony.
- The objection of Ops in regard to the appeal in civil court was overruled by section 3 of the act as it gives an alternative to the complaint to file case in consumer court .
- To refund the amount of Rs.39,50,000/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @12% p.a. (simple) from the respective dates of deposit onwards, within a period of 30 days
- to refund the amount of Rs.15,86,500/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date payment till realization.
- To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.
- To pay Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST JINDAL REALTY (P) LIMITED SONEPAT
Conclusion
The concerned regulatory authority keeping the right and wrong of legal suit passed the order in favor of complaint .The respondent was unable to put forward any evidence ,faction support of delay in possession thus the forum ordered the respondent to refund within 30 days .
This post is written by Rohit Kale.
For Case Specific Advice, One can connect with TOP/BEST/EXPERT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission RERA PROPERTY Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana Advocate Lawyer.
For more Info, Dial 99888-17966
This post covers topics related to complaint letter against builder for delay in possession, consumer court judgements against builders, supreme court judgments on delayed possession, complaint against builder in consumer court complaint against builder for poor construction, rera rules for delayed possession, complaint against builder for cheating, complaint against builder to police.
