Last Updated on July 1, 2021 by Satish Mishra
In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against M/S Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Where consumer had booked a flat in their said project by paying all the amount. And in return the Respondent No.1 promised to deliver the possession within 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement, with an extended period of 6 months, subject to making timely payments by all the due payments. As per Clause 5.5 of the agreement, in case of delay beyond 30 months to deliver the possession, the opposite parties were liable to pay compensation at the rate of ₹5/- per sq.ft. per month of the saleable area for such delay. The opposite party shall pay the amount so awarded within 45 days from the uploading of this order.
KRISHAN KUMAR v M/S COUNTRY COLONISERS PVT. LTD
4 Consumer complaints were filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, where the facts and the questions of law involved in these complaints were the same. The facts of all the complaints are similar and all the complaints have been filed against the same opposite parties by the complainants.
COMPLAINANTS:
Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o House No.20/727, GaliNo.1, Mela Ground, Sirsa, Haryana.
RESPONDENTS / OPPOSITE PARTIES:
- M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., P.O. Rayon and Silk Mills, Adjoining Coca Cola Depot. G.T. Road, Chheharta, Amritsar, Punjab-143105, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/ Officer-in-charge/Director, Sales & Marketing.
- M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Wave Estate, Sector-85, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, through its Managing Director.
Also Read- REGENT LAND HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. CONSUMER COMPLAINT
CORUM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.
FACTS:
The opposite party No.1- Company is engaged in the commercial business of developing and selling housing projects/flats. The opposite parties decided to develop a ‘Residential Group Housing Project’ under the name and style of “Wave Gardens” in Sectors 85 and 99, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, and made newspaper advertisements and visual advertisements to attract the general public to purchase flat from them. The complainant booked a flat in their said project on 19.05.2012, by paying ₹3,00,000/-, and entered into Apartment Allottee(s) Agreement with them on 24.11.2012, whereby unit No.1003, 10th Floor, Sector 85, Mohali, having saleable area of 1380 sq.ft., was allotted to him for a total price of ₹51,75,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of ₹44,58,498.36P with the opposite parties till the date of filing of the complaint. As per Clause 5.1 of that agreement, the opposite parties promised to deliver the possession within 30 months from the date of execution of the agreement, with an extended period of 6 months, subject to making timely payments by all the allottees. As per Clause 5.5 of the agreement, in case of delay beyond 30 months to deliver the possession, the opposite parties were liable to pay compensation at the rate of ₹5/- per sq.ft. per month of the saleable area for such delay. It was further averred that the opposite parties offered “Subvention Scheme” to the complainant, stating that there would be no EMI till possession and, thus, he availed loan of ₹27,00,000/- from ‘Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited’ and Tripartite Agreement was executed between the parties.
Also Read-‘Refund to homebuyers should be with interest at par with home loan rates’
The opposite parties assured that the construction at the site was in full swing, but it was not so. The project was already delayed by more than 2 years and the complainant was bound to give EMI in near future. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, as per their promise. They made another promise to deliver the possession in the year 2015, but to no effect. In fact, the opposite parties are not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, as there were no boundary wall, metalled (pakka) roads etc. at the site. The opposite parties also did not provide community hall, covered stilt parking, yoga centre, proper swimming pool etc. at the site. The complainant sent legal notice dated 10.03.2017 to the opposite parties, but no reply was received. They also failed to provide the other promised facilities. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
Also Read- Consumer Case against MS country Colonisers for Delay in Possession
DEFENCE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that there was no specific period mentioned in the agreement for delivery of possession. The opposite parties were just to make endeavour to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, within 30 months, with an extended period of 6 months from the date of agreement. Moreover, the complainant cannot allege any delay on the part of the opposite parties, as he himself failed to pay the due amounts regularly on time. It was further contended that the delay, if any, in completing the project was on the part of GMADA, who failed to acquire the land required for the project of the opposite parties, as per MoA dated 03.02.2006. Even a request was made to the Land Acquisition Collector, Greater Mohali, vide letter dated 19.01.2012, to acquire 23.21 acres of land, which falls within the master plan of the project, but to no effect. In these circumstances, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties. Moreover, the construction at the project is going on in full swing and they will deliver the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant immediately after completion of the construction work. It was further contended that the complainant purchased the unit, in question, for commercial purpose and, thus, he does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Also Read- Inderpal Singh Shani v. Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. | State …
JUDGEMENT:
The court held that the aforesaid plea of the opposite parties is not tenable, because according to provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, “PAPRA”), it is the duty of the opposite parties itself to supply the information with regard to their ownership, permissions from PUDA/GMADA, licences and ‘Change of Land Use’ etc. The non-supply of this vital information to the complainant is against the provisions of PAPRA.
The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove that they have complied with the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of PAPRA in letter and spirit, by making full and true disclosure of the nature of their title to the land on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed. There is also no evidence on record to prove that, before allotment of the unit, in question, to the complainant, he was made aware about the execution of the above MoA between the opposite parties and the State Government; which might have affected the decision of the complainant for purchasing the unit, in question, from the opposite parties in those circumstances. By not complying with the above said provisions of PAPRA, the opposite parties are certainly guilty of rendering deficient services and adopting unfair trade practice.
Also Read- Saloni Jindal vs Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. on 17 February ..
Further, as per Section 9 of PAPRA, every builder is required to maintain a separate account in a scheduled Bank, for depositing the amount deposited by the buyers, who intend to purchase the plots/flats, but no evidence has been led on the record by the opposite parties to prove that any account has been maintained by them in this respect. There is no evidence or pleading on record on behalf of the opposite parties in this respect. As such, the opposite parties also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA.
It stands proved that the opposite parties failed to hand over the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, without any sufficient reason. The amount paid by the complainant is a deposit held by the opposite parties, in trust of complainants and it should be used for the purpose of building the plots/flats, as mentioned in Section 9 of PAPRA. The builder is bound to compensate for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant for failure to deliver the possession, so has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission.
Also Read- Country Colonisers Pvt – Indian Kanoon
The opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the unit, in question, to the complainant within the stipulated period, without any sufficient cause and, thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of the amount deposited by him, along with interest and compensation.
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Consumer Court RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali for your Property Real Estate Matter either for delay in deficiency or delay in possession. More on 99888-17966.
