BEST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER COMPLAINT

BEST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER COMPLAINT

by

Post covers BEST BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER COMPLAINT wherein builder failed to deliver possession on time.

Bringing you the case Digest on consumer complaint against Best Builders & Developers in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh. Wherein consumer purchased a unit and the opposite party failed to deliver possession of the unit within the Stipulated Period. Then homebuyer sought refund of the amount from builder along with interest, compensation & litigation cost for mental pain and litigation expenses.

Also Read- Renu Bajaj & Anr. vs Best Zone Builders & Developers

Now let’s have the Judgment –

Judgment digest

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Gurnam Singh v. Best Zone Builders & Developers

Date of Decision – 20th September 2019

Complainant:

  1. Gurnam Singh S/o Sh. Kanwal Mohan Singh
  2. Arvind Kaur D/o Gian Chand w/o Kanwal Mohan Singh. Both r/o H.No. 503, S.S.T. Nagar, Patiala, Punjab 1474001.

Opposites:

  1. Best Zone Builders & Developers C/o Orchind Greens, Kharar – Landran Road, Sector – 115, Mohali, Punjab through its Director.
  2. Best Zone Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Shop No. 1-2-3, Orchid Greens, Kharar – Landran Road, Sector – 115, Mohali, Punjab.Email id: [email protected].

Quoram:

President, Mr.Rajinder Kumar Goyal

Also Read- RERA or Consumer Court: How to Seek Legal Remedy Against Builder

Facts of the Case:

  1. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint are that the complainants vide Registration-cum-Application Form and Apartment Allottee(s) Arrangement Agreement executed between the parties booked an apartment No.E-101, Block-E, First Floor, Type 2 BHK, in the project named Orchid Greens for a total amount of unit was financed Rs.22,50,000/-.
  2. The through India Bulls and a Tripartite Agreement dated 28.03.2014, signed by the complainants, opposite parties and the financer i.e. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited was executed. The complainants have paid 90% of the sale consideration. Vide letters dated the 21.12.2015, 15.04.2017, 25.07.2017 and 06.10.2017, the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019 demanded unnecessary payments which were replied by the complainants.
  3. Also the letters issued by India Bulls have also been replied. Vide letter dated 01.12.2016, the complainants sought the information under RTI from Municipal Corporation, Kharar and found that no application for approval of the Corporation for completion and possession of the said units was received.
  4. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the opposite parties were to handover the fully developed flat. The complainants requested the opposite parties to handover the flat within a period of 3 months from the date of signing of the agreement and gave reminders for various incompletion works in the flat.
  5. The complainants are paying the instalments to the Bank regularly. The possession of the flat has not been delivered to the complainants as it was to be delivered in the year 2017.

Also Read- Can Builder Charge for a Open Parking? – Legalseva.net

  1. As per agreement, the pre-EMI for the delayed period was to be paid by the opposite parties till the offer of possession of flat, which was not paid.
  2. The possession letter issued to the complainants without completing the building as per plan and not having complied with the requirements of the authorities.
  3. The opposite parties have not obtained any completion certificate as well as other requisite approvals from the competent authority.
  4. No STP plan, no electricity connection and no boundary wall.
  5. Even reply to the letters/emails of the complainants was not given.
  6. The opposite parties completely failed to handover the possession complete in all respects after getting statutory approvals from the competent authorities. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019 the complainants filed the complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs. Defence of the Opposite Parties

Also Read- Kharar builders get two-year rigorous imprisonment in cheque bounce case

Arguments:

Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainants have not approached this Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts in the complaint.

The complainants do not fall within the ambit of consumer.

On merits, it is admitted that the complainants booked Apartment NO.E-101, Block E, First Floor, Type 2 BHK in Orchid Greens for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-, It is denied that opposite paties issued possession letter without completion of the work. The complainants themselves after being satisfied instructed the Financer-India Bulls to release the remaining 5% of the loan availed.

It is contended that the complainants have not got executed the sale deed in their favour, therefore, the completion certificate could not be issued to them by the M.C. Kharar.

The flat is complete in all respects including electricity connection. It was contended that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

Rest all the averments as averred by the complainants in their complaint were denied and prayed to dismiss the complaint being devoid of merits.

Also Read- Remedies against unfair practices of builders and real estate developers

Judgment:

The only objection raised by the opposite parties is that the complainants do not fall within the ambit of Consumer. The opposite parties has not mentioned anywhere in their written statement that why they do not fall within the ambit of consumer, whether they are investors or for any commercial purpose.

No cogent reasoning has been given in their objection. We are of the view that without any cogent reasoning raising an objection should not be discussed at length. Hence, this objection raised by the opposite parties is straightway rejected. Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019

The complainants contended in their complaint that the flat Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019 allotted to them is not as per layout plan shown to them. As per clause E of the agreement, say that the location allotted to the Allottee(s) is tentative and is subject to change till the final layout / Building Plans and demarcation the Apartment. The relevant clause E is reproduced here under:- E. The Allottee(s) agree and understands that the area of the Apartment subject matter of this Apartment Allottee(s) Arrangement and its location allotted to the Allottee(s) tentative and is subject to change till the final layout/Building Plans and demarcation the Apartment before handing over the possession is completed by the Developer.

Also Read- Builder Delaying Possession. What Is Your Right? – Legalseva .

From the perusal of the above, the contention of the complainants for not allotting the apartment, as per plan shown to them, is hereby rejected.

The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986. It is the benevolent piece of legislation to protect the consumers from exploitation. The spirit of the benevolent legislation cannot be overlooked and its object is not to be frustrated. The complainants have made payment of substantial amount to opposite parties with the hope to get the possession of the unit in a reasonable period. The circumstances clearly show that the opposite parties made false statement of facts about the goods and services i.e. allotment of unit and delivery of possession in a stipulated period. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is a clear case of misrepresentation and deception, which resulted in the injury and loss of opportunity to the complainants. Had the Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019 complainants not invested their money with the opposite parties, they would have invested the same elsewhere. There is escalation in the price of construction also. The builder is under obligation to deliver the possession of the plot/unit/flat within a reasonable period. From the facts and evidence brought on the record of the complaint, it is clearly made out that the opposite parties i.e. builder knew from the very beginning that they had not complied with Rules and the provisions of the PAPRA and would not be able to complete the unit and too deliver the possession within the stipulated period, thus by misrepresentation induced the complainants to book the unit, due to which the complainants have suffered mental agony and harassment. It is the settled principle of law that compensation should be commensurate with the loss suffered and it should be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainants for failure to deliver the possession.

Also Read- What If Builder Doesn’t Comply With Rera Orders?

In view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainants is partly allowed and the fol- lowing directions are issued against the opposite parties:-

  • (i) to handover the possession of Apartment No.E-101, Block No.E, First Floor, Type 2 BHK in Orchid Greens, complete in all respects as per agreement, subject to the balance sale consideration i.e.Rs.57,612/- without interest and penalty and along with Completion and Occupation Certificate within a period of two months.

(ii) to pay compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the deposited amount from the date when the complainants availed the loan i.e. 28.03.2014, till the Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019 handing over the possession complete in all respects as per re lief (i). ii) to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. It is made clear that the balance amount towards sale consideration payable by the complainants shall be adjusted from the above said liability of the opposite parties and after the said adjustment, they shall pay the remaining amount, if any, as directed above, to the complainants.

Also Read- Can Builder Collect Service Tax Vat Gst After Rera

In case the opposite parties fail to deliver the possession within two months, as ordered above, then in the alternative

  • i) to refund the amount of Rs.22,63,905/- along with compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization; Further, the opposite parties shall pay the outstanding loan amount to India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. towards the loan advanced by it to the complainants after deducting the pre-EM1, if any paid by the opposite parties, and, thereafter, the remain parties shall pay the outstanding loan amount to India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. towards the loan advanced by it to the complainants after deducting the pre-EMI, if any paid by the opposite parties, and, thereafter, the remaining amount, if any, shall be paid to the complainants; Consumer Complaint No.306 of 2019
  1. ii) to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses

Also Read- Case of forfeiture of amount by Builder RERA Panchkula

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.

Call Us