In this post we will discuss about a Consumer case for refund against Gillco Developers and Builders wherein The concerned regulatory authority keeping the right and wrong of legal suit passed the order in favour of complaint .The respondent was unable to put forward any evidence ,fact ,in support of delay in possession ,working of club and reply for the civil work to prove party innocent thus the forum ordered the respondent to refund along with the appropriate interest
Also Read- Gillco Developers And Builders … vs Manbir Singh on 18 April …
GILLCO DEVELOPERS CONSUMER DISPUTE
INTRODUCTION
Buying and selling goods are unavoidable daily task of our life now a days .such decisions to execute such investment is fundamentally based upon trust ,failing to which can cause physical harm and financial loss to consumers. Where in {CPA consumer protection act} ,1986 comes in force .which provides rapid relief to such breach of trust or negligence .this cases are sued under CPA .
From so many years , these tribunals ,along with apex courts have made better understanding of CPA, with proper balance between the demands of both sides .
Also Read- Gilco Developers & Builders Pvt. … vs Parminder Singh on 13 …
HEADS COVERED
1 In this post we will acquaint about case Gillco developers and builders ..VS Rajesh Dani case filed in STATE CONSUMER DISPUTEA REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,PUNJAB , CHANDIGARH on 8th june,2017.It will give you a cursory yet important overview regarding all the major facts and issues in the particular case which mainly revolves around claiming ,unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under section 12 of consumer protection act , 1986 .
2 The judgement is based upon whether the opposite parties are liable for the refund of the amount claimed by the appellant ..
Also Read- View – RERA Punjab Orders & Judgments against Gillco Developers and Builders Pvt Ltd
FACTS OF THE CASE
COURT NAME : DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR MOHALI
COMPLAINANT
SH.RAJESH DANI SON OF SH.PAWAN KUMAR DANI ,RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.2750,PHASE 7 ,MOHALI AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.890 TOP FLOOR ,GILLCO HEIGHTS ,MOHALI
APPELLANTS/OPS
- M/s Gillco Developers & Builders Limited through its
Managing Director/Partner/Proprietor Sh. Ranjit Singh Gill s/o Sh. Naib Singh having site office at Gillco Valley, Sector 127, SAS
Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).
2nd address
M/s Gillco Developers & Builders Limited through its Managing
Director/Partner/Proprietor Sh. Ranjit Singh Gill s/o Sh. Naib Singh having registered House No. 2169, Phase-7, Mohali (Punjab)
- Sh. RanjitSingh Gill s/o Sh. Naib Singh, r/o House No. 2169, Phase-7, Mohali
- Sh. P.S. Dhaliwal, Administrative Officer, M/s Gillco
Developers & Builders Highway Pvt. Limited Office at Gilco Valley, Sector-127, National Highway No. 21, Mohali (Punjab)
First appeal number .41of 2016
Date of institution : 13.01.2016
Date of decision :08.06.2017
ALSO READ- REFUND INTEREST & COMPENSATION IN RERA
PLENUM
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT
- GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present;
For the appellants : Sh. M.S Longia ,advocate with
Sh.R.SGill in person
For the respondent: Sh. Aseem Gupta, advocate
Also Read- Bestech Consumer Complaint Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali
Timeline of events
- Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the Ops on the averments that on the basis of advertisement given by the Ops, he moved an application with Ops and Ops allotted an apartment/flat No. 890, Top floor with 2/3 roof rights (3 BHK) with super area 1450 sq. ft. in Gillco Height Independent Floor, situated at Gillco Valley, Sector 127, Mohali
- for a total sale consideration of Rs. 38,98,500/- including car parking, IFMS & Club charges and Rs. 1,62,400/- towards service tax, totalling Rupees. 40,60,900/-. Ops issued allotment letter dated 29.11.2010.
- Apartment buyer’s agreement was executed between the parties on 29.11.2010. Then a tripartite agreement was also executed between the parties and HDFC as the complainant had approached HDFC for financial assistance of Rs. 30 Lacs.
- The complainant kept on paying the amount as and when it become due and demanded by Ops and paid the entire sum of Rs. 40,60,900/-.
- As per the agreement, they had assured to hand over the possession of the flat within a period of 12 months with grace period of 2 months from the date of allotment i.e. 29.11.2010 as detailed in payment plan schedule also.
- Therefore, the possession of the flat was to be given by Ops latest by 1.2.2012. It was further agreed that in case the Company fails to deliver the possession within the stipulated time they would pay to the allottee an amount of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. per month.
- The complainant kept on visiting the office of Ops but they did not deliver the possession as the project started by them was not finished due to slow pace of work.
- Finally Ops delivered the possession on 15.6.2013 after delay of 16½ months. After receiving the offer of possession, the complainant immediately visited the site but to his dismay, the flat was still under consideration and offer of possession was just an eye wash. The sale deed was also got executed by Ops in favour of the complainant on 10.7.2013.
- The complainant had been residing in rented accommodation and had planned to shift in his own flat in February, 2012 but due to delay in delivery of the possession, he could not shift. He had been paying rent approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month.
- When he shifted to the flat, he was surprised to see that the width/size of the flat as shown in the site plan was not of that standard. It was conveyed to the official of the Ops but they failed to take any action to remove the discrepancy.
- Then he moved an email dated 22.6.2013 and asked them to provide the measurement certificate but the same was not provided. The complainant got the total area of the flat measured by an approved Architect and found that the flat allotted to him was having less area of 70 sq. ft. than the committed space.
12 Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed the written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had approached the Hon’ble Forum with regard to venture of the Ops and application moved by the complainant for allotment of flat was admitted
- However, it was stated that the complainant did not pay the installments within time. He was entitled to possession within a period of 14 months only in case he would have paid the installments within the stipulated period.
14 There was delay of 434 days in making the complete payment and complainant was bound to pay an amount of Rs. 1,68,700/- on account of delayed payment
Also Read- Gillco Developers and Builders Pvt Ltd Real Estate Developer …
15 . Therefore, the Ops are not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,19,625/- demanded by the complainant for late delivery of possession.
16 It was denied that super area of the flat is not complete as promised. In fact the complainant was provided the super area measuring 1462 sq. ft. whereas it should be 1450 sq. ft. as per the buyer’s agreement. There was no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops
17 Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the complaint was allowed as referred above. Hence, this appeal by the Ops.ps. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
ALSO READ- SKY ROCKET SOCIETY ORDER REFUND BY MOHALI CONSUMER COURT
THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
1 The complainant had alleged that the respondent had failed to offer the possession of property as mentioned in agreement which 70sq.ft flat in Gillco heights independent floors.
2 whether the complainant had then sought the relief of fund according to the consumer protection act 1986
Finding of the court
As per the contentions and evidences presented by both the parties , and by observations of court the complainant had proved his allegation by clause 36, 39 and 5 in appeal no.158 of 2016 for compensation on account of late delivery of possession beyond the agreed date .complainant had also proved his complaint less area by 70sq.ft,nonexistence of club .on all these account complainant deserves to be compensated for mental harassment and agony ,financial loss he suffered because of Ops .
- The court directed Ops to pay the refund the amount of rupees 1,58,828/ with interest thereon@9% per annum from the date of handing over of possession i.e 06.2013
- To refund amount of 50,000charged by respondent for club with thereon interest of 9%per annum .
- Also to pay 50,000 for not looking into civil work.
- To pay lump sum amount of 25,000 for mental agony ,harassment and costs of litigation.
- Compliance of this order to be made within the period of thirty days from the receipt of the certified copy of order .
ALSO READ- GMADA ORDERED TO REFUND FOR DELAY IN POSSESSION (PURAB APARTMENTS SCHEME)
Conclusion
The concerned regulatory authority keeping the right and wrong of legal suit passed the order in favour of complaint .The respondent was unable to put forward any evidence ,fact ,in support of delay in possession ,working of club and reply for the civil work to prove party innocent thus the forum ordered the respondent to refund along with the appropriate interest
Also Read- Gillco builders and developers pvt ltd — Fake promises and fraud by company
This post is written by Simran Thakral.
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.
