This post is consumer complaint against Bajwa Developers when Sale Deed is already Executed by the home buyer. Read more to know the case.
BAJWA DEVELEOPERS LTD CASE
INTRODUCTION
Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, talks about the State Commission’s jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. They do not have jurisdiction upon the case.
Also Read- Bajwa Developers’ MD, son booked for cheating two customers
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 carry on the business of building and developing housing projects and sale of plots in Sector 123 to 125.The complainant wanted to make a house in the city, therefore he booked a plot in the project called ‘Global City’ situated in village Harlalpur on 19.02.2018 by paying ₹50,000/- as booking amount, regarding which Agreement to Sell was executed on 04.08.2018, when the complainant paid a further sum of ₹1,50,000/-. The complainant obtained loan from proforma opposite party No.3- Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., to whom opposite party No.2 issued letter granting permission to mortgage the said plot. Opposite party No.3 issued approval letter dated 19.07.2018. On 17.09.2018, opposite party No.3 issued a cheque of ₹12 lac in favour of opposite party No.1 and on 26.10.2018, opposite party No.2 received the balance amount of ₹52,737/-. On receipt of full and final sale consideration, Sale Deed of the said plot was executed in favour of the complainant on 26.10.2018.
In November, 2018, the complainant, along with her husband, visited the office of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and asked them to supply other documents and complete the formalities, enabling her to raise construction on the plot. However, their officials asked her to wait till issuance of “No Due Certificate”; which was issued on 10.10.2019 after long delay and heated arguments. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband visited the site of the plot for demarcation and laying foundation, but they shocked to see that about 5-7 persons from village Harlalpur came there and did not allow the complainant to demarcate the plot and lay foundation. In the last week of December, 2019, when the complainant visited the site of the plot, a board was affixed there, stating “The Land Does Not Belong to Bajwa Developers Ltd.”
Also Read- Realtor Bajwa gets 2-yr imprisonment
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
COMPLAINANT’S ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has paid the entire sale price of the plot, by taking loan from opposite party No.3, for which opposite parties No.1 & 2 issued the “No Due Certificate” dated 10.10.2019. Sale Deed of the plot has also been executed on 26.10.2018. However, they have no clear title over the plot, in question. They failed to give demarcation of the plot and a board is affixed in the said plot, stating “”The Land Does Not Belong to Bajwa Developers Ltd.”.
When the complainant visited the site for demarcation and laying foundation in the plot, some persons did not allow her to do so. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite parties No.1 & 2, but to no effect. Due to not having demarcation of the plot, the complainant could not raise construction over the plot for building her home. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be allowed and the complainant is entitled to all the reliefs as prayed for.
The complainant had been paying EMIs for last about one year and she paid 15 EMIs of ₹10,567/- commencing from 01.10.2018 to 01.01.2020, totalling ₹1,58,505/-, out of which an amount of ₹1,30,950/- was paid as interest. However, due to the plot having no clear title, the complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss. The aforesaid act and conduct of opposite parties No.1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
In the reply filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2, that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction, as the relief claimed is below ₹20 lacs. It pleaded that the complainant did not visit the office of opposite party No.1 in November, 2018. It was further pleaded that demarcation is done by the office of opposite party No.1. There is no reason for the complainant to go alone and find out the plot by demarcating it at the spot. It appears that the complainant has trespassed into the land of some other persons.
The so-called board is not laid on the plot of the complainant, but the same is laid by the persons in the land, which is under their ownership. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 never refused to meet the complainant. There is a procedure for delivery of possession and demarcation of plot, which has to be followed by each consumer. The complainant is supposed to apply for demarcation and delivery of possession of the plot in the office of opposite party No.1, instead of insisting on meeting opposite party No.2. The plot sold to the complainant is free from all encumbrances and is the property of opposite party No.1. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have already parted with the ownership rights of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant. The complainant is at liberty to take the possession of plot, by moving an application for demarcation in the office of opposite party No.1.
It was further pleaded that the reliefs claimed by the complainant are not covered within the definition as provided under Section 14 of the Act and the same are grantable by the Civil Court only. The relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties already come to an end, since the Sale Deed of the plot, in question, has already been executed in favour of the complainant. All other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
It needs to be mentioned that the complainant is not praying for delivery of possession or demarcation of the plot, in question. Rather, she is seeking refund of the entire amount deposited by her towards the sale consideration of the plot, besides stamps charges, registration charges, EMIs etc. As already observed above, the complainant has already got executed the Sale Deed of her plot on 26.10.2018, without raising any kind of objection or protest. She did not raise any issue at that time regarding non-demarcation of the plot or affixing of the alleged board at the site. With the execution of Sale Deed, the possession of the plot, in question, is deemed to have been delivered. From the photographs, it is not clear as to in which plot, the said board is affixed. So far as the complaint against opposite party No.3 is concerned, the complainant has taken loan from it for making payment of price of the plot and she is liable to repay the loan amount, as per loan agreement. No relief has been claimed against it. In such circumstances, no case for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant towards sale consideration of the plot, stamps charges etc. is made out.
CONCLUSION
The court has taken the reference of two cases of Hon’ble National Commission i.e., T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan CGHS Ltd. and Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana. In view of the ratio of aforesaid authorities, the complainant, after taking possession of the plot by virtue of execution of Sale Deed on 26.10.2018, without raising any kind of objection, ceased to be the consumer of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the relationship of consumer and service provider came to an end. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to get demarcation of the plot, in question, by moving application in the office of opposite party No.1.
SUMMARY
The complainant filed the complaint to get her money refunded which she has been paid as the charges of buying a plot in the housing scheme of the respondents. The sale deed was issued and no due certificate was also being provided. The question of dispute arose when the complainant has his husband went to see the demarcation, there were no demarcation and they have misunderstood the board of the other party land’s showing that this property not belongs to the developer’s company. The court had the opinion that this case has no merit and dismissed it by giving in favour of the opposite party.
JUDGEMENTS ON THE TOPIC
In T.K.A. Padmanabhan v. Abhiyan CGHS Ltd. and Harpal Arya v. Housing Board Haryana, National Commission had the same opinion. In both the cases possession was in the question. In first case the possession delivering was delayed by 11 months but the complainant has no issue regarding it and filed a complaint after a year. In second case, pre-condition possession certificate was issued and after taking the possession, the complainant complained about that the flat is non-habitable. Both the complaints were dismissed.
For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966
