In this post we will discuss about Consumer Complaint against M/S Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd wherein the court ordered to refund ₹23,40,000/- to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, to pay ₹2,00,000/-, as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants and to pay₹20,000/-, as litigation expenses.
Also Read- Mrs Raj Kumari vs Geetu Construction Pvt Ltd
CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST M/S Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd.
This post is a summary of judgment wherein the complainants came to know that the opposite parties have sold the land, where the above plot was promised to be delivered, to some other company. The complainants filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite parties, for taking criminal action against them. the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony, and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with section 3 of the PAPRA.
ALSO READ- CONSUMER RERA COMPLAINT AGAINST EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED
Judgment digest
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.38 of 2016
Date of institution:05.02.2016
Date of decision:05.04.2017
Complainants:
- Rachna Kapoor wife of Sh. Rajiv Kumar
- Anita Kapoor wife of Sh. Sandeep Kapoor
Both residents of House No.28, Basant Avenue, Maqbool Road, Amritsar
ALSO READ- RACHNA KAPOOR VS M/S GEETU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ON 5 APRIL, 2017
Opposites:
- M/s Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at # 1510, Sector 22, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Principal Officer
- M/s Nature Farms and Real Estates Private Limited, having its office at Nature Height Infra Limited, B.O., 10, Deep Complex, Court Road, Basement, opposite Dwaba Auto, A.G. Power, Amritsar
- Anoop Sobti son of Vipan Kumar, resident of H.No.193, Gali No.4, Nimla Avenue, NarayangarhChhehratta, Amritsar
- Neeraj Kumar son of note known, partner/owner M/s Nature Farms and Real Estates Private Limited, having its office at Nature Height Infra Limited, B.O., 10, Deep Complex, Court Road, Basement, opposite Dwaba Auto, A.G. Power, Amritsar
- Dolly Arora wife of Neeraj Arora, Partner/Owner M/s Nature Farms and Real Estates Private Limited, having its office at Nature Height Infra Limited, B.O., 10, Deep Complex, Court Road, Basement, opposite Dwaba Auto, A.G. Power, Amritsar
Quorum:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram
ALSO READ- COMPLAINT AGAINST GEETU CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD MOHALI
Facts and evidence presented by both parties.
Opposite party No.2 got published advertisement, offering plot for sale in Sector 113, Mohali under the name of “NHI Heritage”. Being allured by the said advertisement, the complainants along with their husbands approached the office of opposite party No.1 and parted away with two cheques amounting to ₹5,20,000/- each, total amounting to ₹10,40,000/- in the name of opposite party No.2, Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. Opposite party No.2 issued a confirmation letter dated 08.10.2012 in the form of booking intimation, along with the receipt. Thereafter, the complainant paid another sum of ₹13,00,000/- by way of the second installment. opposite parties No.1 & 2 executed Agreement to Sell in favor of the complainants on 04.02.2013, for sale of plot no.77, measuring 1800 sq. ft. (200 sq.yds.) for a total sale consideration of ₹52,00,000/- at the rate of ₹2,888.89P per sq. ft. the complainants came to know that the opposite parties have sold the land, where the above plot was promised to be delivered, to some other company.
ALSO READ- GEETU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. V. RAJ KUMARI
The complainants filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite parties, for taking criminal action against them. The opposite parties have created several persons, including the complainants, as they grabbed huge amounts from the buyers, without bothering to deliver possession of the plots. They have no license to promote or develop the colony, as per the advertisement. The complainants served a legal notice dated 04.01.2016 upon opposite parties No.1, 2, 3, and 4, requesting to refund the amount of ₹23,40,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12%, and compensation was received. Sh. Anoop Sobti, opposite party No.3, in person, contended that he is not at all responsible, as there is no deficiency in service on his part. He is working only as an employee of opposite party No.2 and was dealing with the complainants only on its behalf. All the payments were made by the complainants to opposite party No.2, who issued the receipts for the same. As soon as, opposite party No.3 came to know about the fraud committed by opposite party No.2, he immediately left his job.
ALSO READ- GEETU CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS MOHINDER SINGH SANDHU ON 17 MAY, 2018
Judgment:
As per section 3 (General Liabilities of Promoter) of the PAPRA, the opposite parties were required to make full and true disclosure of the nature of his title to the land, on which such colony is developed or such building is constructed or is to be constructed, make full and true disclosure of all encumbrances on such land, including any right, title, interest or claim of any party in or over such land. They were also required to give inspection on seven days, notice or demand of the layout of the colony, and plan of development works to be executed in a colony as approved by the prescribed authority in the case of a colony. However, the opposite parties failed to comply with section 3 of the PAPRA. 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, opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 also violated Section 9 of the PAPRA. Opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5 had been collecting huge amounts from the buyers for the development of the project. The amount received from the complainants-buyers was required to be deposited in the scheduled Bank, as per Section 9 of PAPRA and we wonder where that amount had been going. the complaint is allowed against opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5, and the complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. The following directions are issued to opposite parties No.1, 2, 4 & 5:
ALSO READ- CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASES AGAINST MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD
- i) to refund ₹23,40,000/- to the complainants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits, as per Rule 17 of PAPRA;
- ii) to pay ₹2,00,000/-, as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainants; and
iii) to pay₹20,000/-, as litigation expenses.
Opposite parties No.1,2, 4 & 5 shall comply with the order within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the compensation amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of this order till realization.
Also Read- COMPLAINT AGAINST GEETU CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD MOHALI
This post is written by Riya Singh
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.
This post covers topics related to consumer court judgements against builders 2019, refund of token money from builder consumer court case judgement, defense for builders in case of delay in delivery of possession, ncdrc judgements against builders 2020, consumer protection act, 2019, builders to pay interest if possession not delivered as per agreement to flat buyers,: supreme court supreme court judgments on delayed possession.
