CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT LTD RERA Complaint

Last Updated on October 20, 2021 by Satish Mishra

CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT LTD RERA Complaint wherein refund of payment allowed with interest SBI MCLR +2%.

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY of Complaint before RERA Punjab Authority against CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT LTD RERA Complaint

HARISH MINOCHA V. CHANDIGARH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., 7^th July, 2020

Today we are going to talk about the case of Harish Minocha v. Chandigarh overseas Pvt. Ltd., 7^th July, 2020. The advocate for the complainant side was Ms. Banni Chibbar and for the respondent side was ex- parte.

The case was about the plot that has been purchased by giving the substantial amount but not given the possession on time that’s why the case was being brought to the Court. Now to state the facts, issues and judgements regarding the case were being followed:

Also Read- Orders/ Judgements by Adjudicating Officer – RERA Punjab

The case was filed under section 18(1), section 2(11) and section 2(1)r which is return of the amount and compensation, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant entered into a buyer agreement on 24^th December, 2007 in respect of purchase super built area of 125 square feet in design studio under the scheme called “small investor scheme” in industrial knowledge (fashion technology) park. The total sale consideration for unit was Rs.5,00,000/- against which an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- was paid within the stipulated time period.
The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be paid within 10 days of the offer of possession. Further, the possession of the unit was to be handed over to M/s Greenfield Sites Management Pvt. Ltd as the same was to be taken over by them on lease. The complainant was assured of rentals from M/s Greenfield Sites Management Pvt. Ltd on account of lease agreement and accordingly the same was executed between both the parties on 24^th December, 2007. The respondent had promised to hand over possession within 30 months of start of construction i.e., by the end of June, 2010.

Also Read- Orders/ Judgements – RERA Punjab

The possession has not been offered by the respondent to the complainant to so far, as a result of which he has suffered both the loss of lease rent from the leasing justifiable reasons. The respondent has accepted the fact that the construction of the project could not be carried out on account od series of reasons both legal and financial. The para 6 in which the reply of the respondent has stated as:
“Therefore, under the condition mentioned herein above each of the parties have to bear their own losses. The construction costs since time the agreement was executed between the parties and the force majeure conditions were removed, have gone skyrocketing and it is impossible for the answering opposite parties to have over the possession of the unit being commercial in nature to the complainant or any other similarly situated persons at the same price. The construction material price index from 2010 till now is annexed herewith and marked as annexure R-4 which would show 100% increase in the cost of construction”.
Further, the respondent has mentioned that on account of non-payment of balance amount of Rs.25,000/- the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- paid so far by the complainant has been forfeited due to default on the part of the complainant. respondent was called for several times but no one came present on behalf of the respondent, even after knowing the said date fixed for arguments. The court waited till 4:00 P.M. but none came present. Despite giving repeated opportunities, it appears that respondent was deliberately and willfully not appearing before the authority and was delaying the court proceedings too.
It was decided to proceed ex-parte and matter be argued in the absence of the respondent. From the perusal of the reply, it appears that respondent has nothing more to say beyond the written reply filed by him. The same has been examined in detail. Based on the complaint and the reply and also oral and written arguments by the complainant, the following is concluded:

Also Read- Chandigarh Overseas Private … vs Amninder Deep Singh

a) the respondent has failed to carry out the construction as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell.

b) the respondent does not intend to carry out the construction.
c) the respondent has made a wrong submission that a sum of Rs.161250/- has already returned to the complainant, as this amount was received by the complainant towards the delay charges, already agreed upon between the complainant and the respondent.
d) the respondent has claimed to have confiscated the entire amount of Rs.4,75,000/- which was totally illegal.
e) the complainant was seeking to withdraw from the project on account of contraventions of under section 18(1) by the respondent. He was entitled to the refund of the entire amount paid by him along with the interest, as prescribed in the act and rules made thereunder, from the date the payments were made by her.

Also Read- Gurdev Singh Mann vs Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd

8) Based on the merits of the case and the facts as discussed above, the following was ordered: the respondent shall refund the entire payment of Rs.4,75,000/- so paid by the complainant, as provided under section 18(1) along with interest with the reference the dates the respective payments were made, as per state Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate + 2% as prevailing from time to, time, till the date of this order. This amount shall be paid within 60 days of this order.

9) In the second part, the respondent shall pay interest to the complainants from the date after the date of this order, till the date of payment, to the complainants as per State of India highest marginal cost of lending rate +2% as prevailing from time to, time. The complainant has not made any demand for payment of compensation and has categorically stated that he is not seeking the same as such he is not entitled to any compensation. No other relief was made out.

The complaint was accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to record room and copy of order be provided, free of cost, to both the complainants and the respondent. The judgement was being decided by the Sanjiv Gupta Member RERA (real estate development and authority) Act, 2016 Punjab.

Also Read- Inderjit Singh v. Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – CaseMine

CONCLUSION

The judgment decided was at all justified from all the legal side and legal point of view. As the company has committed fraud with the customer by not giving them their plot and the money, they have spent on taking was wasted plus the customers have talked to other company for lease was being totally wasted as interest was started charged. And most of all the respondent didn’t even turn out in the court which proves that they have committed fraud and held should be liable for the same. Because justice prevail everywhere as when one find it and work hard on it then only the person can get justice as the ones who are not following or obeying it are the ones who should be taught a lesson for the same.

This post is written by Sammyak Jain.

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.