Gateway City PUDA Consumer Complaint Case

The post Gateway City PUDA Consumer Complaint Case covers compensation for delay in possession to complainant on said date as per BBA.

NAVDEEP KAUR BOPARAI V. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY (PUDA) & ANOTHER, 19th March 2021

Judgment by J.

Also Read- puda appeal dismissed by rera appellate tribunal punjab

Facts-

Dr. Navdeep Kaur Boparai purchased a residential plot in the project named Gateway City. She filed a complaint against PUDA concerning the failure to hand over the possession of the plot along with all kinds of clearances, permissions, completion certificates, and amenities promised in the contract and allotment letter.
According to clause 4(1) of the allotment letter, the possession of the property was to be on the completion of development works and basic amenities or within 18 months from the date of issuance of the letter of allotment, whichever is earlier.
The defendant/opposite party failed to receive a certificate of completion from the concerned authorities before the date of 15^th March 2016.
The complainant and her father, a retired army officer made several personal requests for the matter concerned but received no response.
After 34 months of delay in the possession, the site was found to not be approachable and suitable for construction works.
The opposite parties also advertised and allotted plots to the general public without the pre-requisites of complete ownership of the land.
Several plots were in the river bed of Patiala Ki Rao and were allotted different ones which were equally bad. moreover, the huge garbage dump near the site, close tension wires close to the plot, etc made the area unlivable and inhabitable.

Also Read- CONSUMER COMPLAINT GMADA State Commission Punjab

Contentions of the parties

Complainant

The complainant contended that due to the failure of the defendant to deliver the possession of the plot within the time period mentioned in the letter of allotment letter, she is entitled to compensation with interest for the delay caused or for a refund of the amount with interest.
The learned counsel also contended that the opposite parties have failed to even provide for basic amenities like roads, sewerage, etc as promised. Due to this, any construction on the plot became impossible.
They argued for compensation as the other party had failed to fulfill the terms of the contract and indulged in unfair trade practices.

Defendant

The defendant argued that the complainant had failed to file the complaint within a reasonable time period and thus is barred by time.
They argued that except for a few parts, the development works and the project was complete and it was the complainant who failed to come forward to accept the possession of the plot when it had been offered.

Also Read- Prateek Bansal vs Punjab Urban Planning & … on 8 January

The issue raised– Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation or refund( of the amount paid by her)for the delay in delivery of possession of the property(plot) in question?

Relevant statutory provisions

Section 47 of the Consumers Protection Act,2005
Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Rules,1995

Observations/Judgement-

In the present case, the court held that the complainant had a continuous cause of action as the possession had not been delivered by the date promised in the allotment letter clause 4(1). It was not barred by time and was within limitation.
The court opined that due to the lack of proper development works like sewerage, roads, etc, and inhabitable conditions, the defendants have failed to fulfill the uphold the contractual obligations.
The court observed that the buyer cannot be forced to take possession of the property when the same is not delivered within the time decided in the agreement between the two parties.
The court observed that since the opposite parties failed to receive and produce in the court a completion certificate from the authorities concerned before the date of 15^th march 2016 hence, all offers to deliver the legal possession before that date were unlawful and void in nature.
The complainant paid a sum of 1,23,75,563/- against total sale consideration as per

the receipts presented before the court. She had also raised a loan for the payments against which she had to pay significant interest rates. In light of the present facts, the court held that the complainant had waited long enough and suffered enough mental agony. Therefore, she has reasonable grounds to seek remedy and is entitled to get a refund or compensation for delayed possession.

The court decided the quantum of compensation as per Rule 17 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Rules, 1995. The compensation is to be given as

to pay interest @12% p.a., amount 1,23,75,563/- from stipulated date of possession 22nd February, 2018.
ii) it was also made clear that a period of three years for construction of the building will start from the date of handing over possession as per relief,

iii) no penalty be imposed till that time upon the complainant,

iv) to pay 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

Also Read- Bikram Singh vs Punjab Urban Development ..

Comment

The judgment was based on precedents of several cases and the terms of the contract. The court upheld the spirit of consumer protection laws by preventing harassment and disadvantage to the complainant.

Post written by Rahat Kanwar.

For case specific advice please contact Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lawyer Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur.