In this post we will discuss about a consumer case in which the state consumer redressal commission in its judgment directed a builder to pass the possession of the plot to an Australian couple with the allotment letter under the PAPRA Act.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was enacted to safeguard the interest of the consumers and also to protect them from unfair trade and practices. In 1995, the Punjab government enacted the PAPRA (Punjab Authority and Property Regulation Act) to regulate the promotion of the construction sale, transfer, and management of apartments on an ownership basis to regulate colonies and property transactions and mandate registration of promoters and real estate agents and also to ensure the enforcement of obligations on promoters and real estate agents.
Also Read- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darshan Singh Gill vs M/S Manohar Infrastructure And … on 18 July, 2019
Facts
The complainants are residents of Australia and used to visit India one or two times per year. As they visited India each year, they were in a need of a residential apartment in a plotted area near Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainants required residential accommodation in such a way that their children and grandchildren can visit India and can stay there at any time. In April 2012, the complainants were in India and booked a residential apartment and paid an amount of 13, 83,601 which is 30% of the total amount. At the time of booking, the opposite parties ensured the approval of all the sanctions except one or two, and the remaining permission would be obtained within 20 months. It was also assured to the complainants that the allotment letter and buyer’s agreement would be given within 4-5 months. On 19.02.2014, it was informed that the project is in its final stage and the opposite parties demanded Rs 9,25,000 from the complainants.
Also Read- Consumer forum directs Chandigarh-based Manohar Infrastructure to pay Rs 11 crore to 26 flat buyers
In August 2014, it was informed that the CLU was has been received and the plot shall be allotted by December 2014. The complainants paid 50% of the total amount, i.e. Rs 23, 08,601. However, the opposite parties arbitrarily issued another application incorporating the conditions of paying IDC. It was further stated that neither the allotment letter nor buyer’s agreement was issued after paying the amount of 9, 25,000. Further, vide a letter; the opposite parties assured that the buyer’s agreement would be executed within 30 days. However, the parties expressed their concern towards the allotted plot, and accordingly, they were allotted the plot that they desired for. Later it was discovered that there was no development in the area where plot bearing No.’s 247 and 248 situated and only open fields were there. Later it was found that the opposite party had not even taken the necessary permission and the complainants had already paid Rs. 42, 14,851 out of the total amount.
ALSO READ- CAN BUILDER BE BOOKED BY POLICE UNDER PAPRA? YES
Issues Involved
Section 2(1) (d) of the consumer protection act, 1986, defines a consumer as anyone who buys goods or services which has been made or promised or partly made or partly promised, or under any system of differed goods or includes any such use of the goods other than the person who buys such good for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The counsel for the complainant argued that the acts of the respondents are a clear violation of the provisions in PARPRA (Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act). According to Section 35 PAPRA, the civil courts do not have the jurisdiction to hear any matter arising under PAPRA. The counsel of the respondents argued that the complainants are residing in Australia and have no intention to come to India, therefore the plot was purchased for future gains and thus they would not fall under the definition of consumers.
Also Read- RERA Punjab Authority Complaint against Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd Chandigarh
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the project in question was sold without any sanctions from the competent authority, and violates section 4 (1) (a) of the PAPRA. Collecting money from the client without obtaining required permissions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent.
ALSO READ- OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION CONSUMER COMPLAINT IN SATE COMMISSION
Judgment Cited
Pankaj Goyal v. Manohar Infrastructure
[1]The complainant was seeking a refund of Rs. 30, 06,250 paid by him to the opposite parties as to the price of the residential plot purchased by the complainant for his personal use in a mega housing project. The opposite parties failed to allot the plot to the complainant in the fixed time despite receiving the amount from him. The opposite parties even failed to appraise the complainant, regarding the development of the project. The respondents also failed to issue neither the allotment letter nor the buyer’s agreement to the plaintiff’s, despite receiving the payments on time. On inquiry, it was found that CLU for setting up mega projects was obtained only after the payment was made. Moreover, other important sanctions and permissions were yet to be received. The state consumer redressal commission in its judgment directed the opposing parties to refund Rs. 30, 06,250 with interest per annum from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
Also Read- Failure to comply with court orders lands builder in soup
Abha Arora v. Puma Regulators PVT.LTD
[2]The complainant purchased a plot from the opposing parties which are part of the mega housing project. For this purpose, the complainant paid an amount of 56, 00,000 to the opposing parties against which a plot buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties. As per the agreement, the complainant was entitled to get possession of the land after the development of the same within 24 months, with an additional grace period of 6 months, but not more than 30 months. It was stated that the possession of the land should be allotted to the complainant by 18.02.2014, and could be delayed by 12 months only on the payment of compensation per month for the period of delay. It was pleaded by the complainant that the land was not developed and its possession was offered to the complainant on 21.05.2015 only to avoid the refund of money paid by the complainant. The state consumer commission directed the opposing parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant with a quarterly investment of 12% from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
Also Read- Bimla Devi & Others v/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited & Others
Judgment
Also Read- Jagjot Singh v. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd
The state consumer redressal commission in its judgment directed the opposing parties to pass the possession of the plot to the complainant with the allotment letter, in his favor within two months after obtaining the completion certificates from the competent authority. It also ordered the respondents to execute the register the sale deed in respect of the plot in question in the favour of the complainant within 2 months. It also directed the opposing party to pay compensation with an interest of 12% per annum on the entire deposited amount till the actual delivery of physical possession. To pay a compensation of 1, 50,000 for the mental pressure, agony, faced by the complainants due to the unfair trade practices.
ALSO READ- SHIVA ENCLAVE KHARAR BUILDER BOOKED UNDER PAPRA
This post is written by Rakshith Shetty
Rest for specific real estate disputes against builder in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur New Mullanpur etc. one can connect with top/best expert Real Estate Lawyer Advocate for free legal opinion or advice
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
[1] Pankaj Goyal v. Manohar Infrastructure CC/189/2018
[2] Abha Arora v. Puma Regulators PVT.LTD CC/170/2015
