In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against M/S WWICS Estate PVT. LTD wherein The complaint couldn’t be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
Surindar Singh Vs. M/S WWICS Estate PVT. LTD.
In this case, we will cover the property dispute between the consumer and the builder under the section 17 of the consumer Protection act, 1986 decided by the Hon’ble court. So one can pretty much have fair idea how the case commences in courts if one is looking to have similar relief from District Courts of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali, Kharar, Derabassi, Zirakpur.
The present post will cover and give an overview of the case.In this case, we will cover the property dispute between the consumer and the builder under the section 17 of the consumer Protection act, 1986 decided by the Hon’ble court.
The present post will cover and give an overview of the case and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around claiming, transferring and releasing of the property as the transfer of property. And it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around claiming, transferring and releasing of the property as the transfer of property.
ALSO READ- SH. SURINDER SINGH V. M/S WWICS ESTATES PVT. LTD.
Facts of case :
Petitioner –
Surindar Singh
Respondent –
M/S WWICS Estate PVT. LTD
ALSO READ- TEJINDER SHARMA V. M/S WWICS ESTATES PVT. LTD.
Date of filling complaint :Jan18, 2018
Date of amendment under Section Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act :18 January 2018
- On the averments that opposite party had agreed to allot the apartment No.J-304, Tower-1, 3rd Floor, Imperial Heights, Sector 115, Greater Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2016 Mohali for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,27,841/-. Originally it was allotted to Mrs. Baljit Sandhu and later on Baljit Sandhu endorsed/assigned all her rights and interest in favor of the complainant including the payments made in this regard vide endorsement Form (F-2) dated 03.09.2013. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the possession of the said unit has not been delivered by the opposite party to the complainant within the agreed period of 30 months. The opposite party has already received a sum of Rs.25,71,058/- i.e. Rs.43,217/- excess to the actual cost of Rs.25,27,841/-. Accordingly, complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party for refund of Rs.25,71,058/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with compensation and costs.
ALSO READ- ASHWANI KUMAR SACHDEVA VS M/S WWICS ESTATES PVT.LTD. ON 18 DECEMBER, 2020
- Reply was filed by the opposite party taking preliminary objections that the complainant suppressed the material facts. The flat in question was booked by Baljit Sandhu, who made the part payment and she has not been made as a party to it and that the said Baljit Sandhu had transferred/ assigned all her rights in favor of the complainant. As per the agreement the total amount was to be paid at the time of taking the possession i.e.Rs.25,27,841/- and the complainant has made a total payment of Rs.24,87,032/- to the opposite party and a sum of Rs.83,976/- was paid towards the service tax. The opposite party-company was required to deliver the possession of the apartment by 05.04.2015 to the complainant. However, due to delay in getting the clearance at the Govt. level, the possession of the apartment was delayed. In case of delay, the Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2016 opposite party is liable to pay penalty of Rs.5/- per sq. ft. per month of the super area to the complainant. It was further stated that the possession could not be delivered due to non-clearance at the Govt. level. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
ALSO READ- WWICS ESTATE PVT LTD AND ORS VS GHANSHYAM BHUPAL AND ORS ON 12 NOVEMBER, 2020
- In support of their contentions, complainant tendered into evidence the affidavit as Ex.C-A and copies of the documents Endorsement form (F-2) dated 03.09.2013 as Ex.C-1, Receipt dated 23.07.2013 as Ex.C-2, Cheque dated 23.11.2013 as Ex.C-3, Cheque dated 22.05.2016 as Ex.C-3A, statement of account dated 15.12.2016 as Ex.C-4, receipt dated 11.07.2016 as Ex.C-5, legal notice as Ex.C-6, allotment letter as Ex.C-7, agreement for apartment dated 06.04.2012 as Ex.C-8, whereas opposite party filed the affidavit as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents, Builder Buyer Agreement dated 06.04.2012 as Ex.OP-1, payment plan as Ex.OP-2, request letter dated 07.08.2013 as Ex.OP-3, Endorsement Form (F-2) as Ex.OP-4, letter dated 16.12.2015 as as Ex.OP-5, payment plan as Ex.OP-6, letter dated 06.04.2016 as Ex.OP-7, six photographs as Ex.OP-8.
ALSO READ- AMANDEEP SINGH & ORS VS WWICS ESTATES PVT LTD ON 16 MAY, 2018
- During the pendency of the complaint there was compromise between the parties.
- According to the statement made by the counsel for the opposite party Mr.Raman Walia, Advocate, total principal amount of Rs.25,71,058/- vide which it was agreed that a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- would be payable by draft to the complainant Surinder Singh and his co-applicant Harpreet Kaur. The balance Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2016 amount of Rs.10,71,058/- would be payable along with up to date interest calculated for an amount of Rs.7,85,439/- (Rs.8,72,710/- minus TDS Rs.87,271/-) would be paid to the complainant on 16.04.2018. The amount of Rs.10,71,058/- would be separately carry interest at the rate of 9% interest from 21.02.2018 up to 15.04.2018 (less TDS). The calculation sheet has been provided to the complainant from 01.08.2013 to 20.02.2018 calculated at the rate of 9%.
- Complainant Surinder Singh along with their counsel Sh. Munish Gulati , Advocate have read the statement and had seen the calculated sheet payable before this Commission and the offer made by the counsel for the opposite party-Company and same is acceptable to the complainant and accordingly the complaint be disposed of.
- On the basis of statements referred above given by the parties we pass the compromise order in favor of the complainant and against the opposite party as under:-
ALSD READ- MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
Demand of the complainant:
Opposite party will pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of demand draft to complainant Surinder Singh on or before 20.02.2018. ii) Opposite party will pay Rs.10,71,058/-, interest amount of Rs.7,85,439/- and interest on a sum of Rs.10,71,058/- at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.02.2018 to 15.04.2018 to the complainant on or before 16.04.2018. Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 2016 iii) Opposite party will further issue a statement of filing Service Tax and TDS Certificate deposited with the Government of India on or before 16.04.2018.
ALSO READ- GILLCO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA CASE
It is made clear that in case the opposite did not comply with the order in aforesaid terms, opposite party will further be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the defaulting amount for the defaulting period. In case the payment is not made by the opposite party as per their statement then the complainant will have a right to recover the same by filing an execution application under section 25 & 27 of the consumer protection act.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST JINDAL REALTY (P) LIMITED SONEPAT
The complaint couldn’t be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
This post is written by Rohit Kale
For case specific advice, one can contact best/top/expert consumer/Real estate lawyers advocate practicing in District Consumer Forum or State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Punjab Haryana Chandigarh.
For more info contact- 99888-17966.
This post covers topic related to recent judgments on delay in delivery of possession of property, supreme court judgments on delayed possession 2020, compensation for delayed possession of flats as per rera, compensation or interest for delay in handing over flat is not taxable, compensation received from builder for failure to give possession of flat held not taxable supreme court judgment on possession without occupancy certificate, late possession penalty supreme court, judgement on refund from builder.
