In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against Greater Mohali Area Development Authority wherein the complainant booked a residential plot in the project of the opposite party namely “IT City, GMADA” situated at IT City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, by submitting the application form. However, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession within that period. The complainant served legal notice through e-mail asking the opposite party to refund the entire amount, along with interest. The opposite party denied a grant of said interest on the ground that the same is not provided in the brochure.
Judgment digest
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.199 of 2019
Date of institution: 07.03.2019
Date of decision: 14.10.2019
Complainant:
Deepti Malhan, R/o J-3, 3rd Floor, Saket, New Delhi.
Opposite Party:
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, through its Chief
Administrator.
Address: PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
Ph.No.:0172-2215522.
Argued by:
For the complainant: Ms. Sapna Randhawa
For the opposite party: Sh. Anuj Kohli, Advocate
Quorum:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
ALSO READ- EXECUTION CASE HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA AUTHORITY AGAINST OMAXE
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
The complainant booked a residential plot in the project of the opposite party namely “IT City, GMADA” situated at IT City, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, by submitting an application form on 15.04.2014. The complainant paid a total sum of ₹1,08,70,569/- to the opposite party towards the price of that plot. However, the opposite party failed to deliver the possession within that period. the complainant served legal notice through e-mail dated 26.03.2018, asking the opposite party to refund the entire amount, along with interest. The opposite party had initially paid ₹62,00,000/-, vide cheque No.231084 dated 02.07.2018 as part payment, directing the complainant to submit the said cheque to the HDFC Bank, from which she had taken the loan and to furnish ‘No Due Certificate’, to facilitate the refund of rest of the principal amount of ₹44,35,569/-.
ALSO READ- ASSURED RETURN CONSUMER RERA CASE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
The complainant duly submitted the ‘No Due Certificate’ to the opposite party; who then paid the remaining amount of ₹44,35,569/- to her on 01.08.2018, vide cheque, Ex.C-8. However, it failed to pay interest at the rate of 8%, as per Clause 18 of the LoI. Rather, the opposite party denied the grant of said interest, vide letter dated 15.11.2018, on the ground that the same is not provided in the brochure. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant instituted the complaint. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed a reply to the complaint, raising preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Terms and conditions regarding the scheme are duly spelled out in the brochure, according to which further process regarding draw of lots and issuance of LoI was carried out. The complainant applied for allotment of the plot, by relying upon the terms of the brochure.
ALSO READ- MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
The issue regarding alleged demanded interest was duly considered and decided in the meeting dated 27.02.2018, held under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA, and it was decided that by adhering to the terms of the brochure of the scheme, no interest at the rate of 8% compounded annually is to be given to the allottees. The complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’, as she purchased the plot for speculative purposes and not for her self-residence. The value of the entire claim sought in the complaint is beyond ₹1 Crore and, as such, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Similar to other pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were reiterated, and denying all other allegations contained in the complaint, dismissal thereof was prayed. To prove her claim, the complainant, along with the complaint, produced her affidavit and copies of documents i.e. details of payments made by the complainant Ex.C-1, LoI Ex.C-2, application for withdrawal Ex.C-3, e-mail and legal notice Ex.C-4 (colly.), cheques Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-8, reply to legal notice Ex.C-6, No Due Certificate Ex.C-7, brochure Ex.C-9 and calculation sheet Ex.C-10. The complainant also produced a copy of the legal notice along with a postal receipt sent to Rajesh Ex.C-11, the envelope of the legal notice and delivery report Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 and RTI application along with the delivery report, Ex.C-14, along with the replication. The opposite party, along with its reply, filed an affidavit of Sh. Rohit Gupta, Estate Officer, and copies of documents i.e. proceedings of meeting dated 27.02.2018 Ex.OP-1, letter received Sh. Rajesh Ex.OP-2 and letter dated 25.02.2018 sent to him, Ex.OP-3. Contentions of the Parties. the complainant opted out of the scheme and sought a refund of the deposited amount, as per Clause-18 of the LoI, as per which in case of withdrawal from the scheme, the amount deposited by the allottee was to be refunded along with 8% interest compounded annually; but the deposited amount was refunded by the opposite party, without any interest. The complainant also furnished the No Due Certificate obtained from HDFC Bank, from whom she had obtained a loan, to the opposite party, but without any result. The complaint is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the complaint, as the issue of refund only is involved. The alleged letter, Ex.OP-2, was fake, as no such person resides at the given address, as verified by the complainant, as per documents annexed with the replication.
ALSO READ- PRIMARY ESTATES & DEVELOPERS CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT
There is a grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and, as such, all the reliefs, as claimed in the complaint, are liable to be awarded to the complainant. learned counsel for the opposite party also argued on the lines of the reply. It was further contended that the total value of the relief claimed, keeping in view the sale consideration of the plot, exceeds ₹1 Crore and, thus, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further contended that the development in the scheme has been duly carried out, but the complainant opted out of the same as she was not getting the desired return in premium from the real estate market. The speculative purpose of the complainant to purchase the plot, in question, is confirmed from letters Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, discussed in the reply. It was further contended that the entire principal amount paid by the complainant has been refunded to her, but no interest on the same is payable by the opposite party, given the minutes of the meeting dated 27.02.2018, held under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA wherein it was decided that by adhering to the terms of the brochure of the scheme, no interest at the rate of 8% compounded annually is to be given to the allottees.
ALSO READ- GILLCO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD CONSUMER RERA CASE
Judgment:
The total value of the plot, in question, coupled with the relief claimed exceeds Rs.1 Crore. Therefore, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint. Since this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction over this matter, so other points involved in the complaint need not be discussed. The complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for presenting the same before the appropriate Fora having jurisdiction, in accordance with law. The complaint, in original, along with documents and its spare sets be returned by the Registry to the complainant, after a copy of the same be retained, duly attested by the counsel. The complainant shall present the complaint before the appropriate Fora, within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
This post is written by Riya Singh
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 topics related to consumer court judgements against builders 2020, consumer court decision against builde,r supreme court judgments on delayed possession 2020, supreme court judgments on delayed possession 2020, supreme court judgement on rera, supreme court judgements against builders, consumer court judgements against builders 2020, supreme court judgement in favour of builders.
