SHAURYA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD Consumer Complaint wherein the interest was awarded for delay in possession.
RAVINDER SINGH V. SHAURYA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD, 19th April, 2017
Today we are going to talk about the case of Ravinder Singh v. Shaurya Township Pvt. Ltd, 19th April, 2017. The advocates for the complainant side was Sh. H.S. Gharuan and for the respondent side it was ex-parte. The case was being held at state consumer disputes redressal commission, Punjab, sector 37-A, Dakshin Marg, Chandigarh.
The case was about the possession of the flat not given to the complainants as the substantial amount for taking the possession of the plot was given to the respondents but then also, they haven’t provided them with the possession. That’s why this matter was being brought into the court. Now to state the facts, issues along with the judgement came are as follows:
Also Read- Ravinder Singh vs Shaurya Township Pvt. Ltd. on 19 April, 2017
- Complainant has brought this complaint under section 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the allegations that opposition no.2 and 3 launched one company in the name of Shaurya Townships Pvt. Ltd at Mohali for construction of flats. The complainant submitted his application on 24th November, 2012 for allotment of apartment for total consideration of 62,75,000/- besides 1,50,000/- for power backup and 75,000/- for club charges. The OPs assured him at the time of booking that they have taken all approval and permission for construction from concerned authorities and flats would be handed over within 30 months with effect from 24.11.2012.
- The complainant paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- through cheque no.013301 drawn on 24.11.2012 (IDBI Bank) on 24.11.2012 onwards booking amount of 3 BHK+SQ+4T (Super area 2000.60 square feet) against receipt dated 24.11.2012. On 24.11.2012, the complainant paid another sum of Rs.90,000/- through cheque no.045971 drawn on 24.11.2012 (ICICI Bank) towards booking amount of 3 BHK+SQ+4T (Super area 2000.60 square feet) against receipt dated 24.11.2012. On 24.11.2012, complainant again paid another sum of Rs.8,20,000/- in cash towards booking amount of 3 BHK+SQ+4T (Super area 2000.60 square feet) and OPs issued receipt dated 24.11.2012. On 11.12.2012, the complainant paid another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in cash towards booking amount of 3 BHK+SQ+4T (Super area 2000.60 square feet) and OPs issued receipt dated 11.12.2012. As per demand of OPs, complainant paid another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to them on 04.01.2013 in cash towards booking amount of 3 BHK+SQ+4T (Super area 2000.60 square feet) against receipt dated 04.01.2013.
Also Read- Ms Universal Infrastructures Consumer Complaint for Deficiencies
- Despite three years and two months elapsed, possession of the unit has not been delivered to him by the OPs. The OPs utilized the hard earned money of the complainant. The complainant was flabbergasted on receiving letter dated 14.05.2015 that GMADA has approved the project of OPs only vide letter dated 30.03.2015 and the work started on 15th April, 2015 after Bhoomi Pujan and complainant was asked to pay the next installment of Rs.7,50,000/- within 15 days. It is evident from perusal of letter dated 14.05.2015 that OPs received money from the complainant and innocent people without approval from GMADA. The OPs were not entitled to book any apartment by receiving money from innocent people prior to approval by GMADA. The complainant received another letter dated 23.01.2016 (Annexure C8) from OP informing that the project Shaurya Townships Pvt Ltd. has been renamed as Sark meadows and the paper work would be executed in the new name shortly. The complainant had been visiting the office of OPs repeatedly and also contacted OPs time and again, but to no effect. The complainant felt satisfied that OPs were not intending to handover the possession of unit allotted to him on 24.11.2012 and their purposes is just to utilize the money paid by the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing OPs to refund the money of Rs.19,50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum to the complainant; further to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment; and to pay Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses.
Also Read- Nitishree Infrastructure Consumer Complaint for Delay
- The court have heard both of the hearings and also examined the ex-parte evidence shown on the record for this case. It is stated in it that project has been renamed as Sark Meadows and requisite paper work shall be executed in the new name shortly. Annexure C-9 are the photographs of the site, which showed no construction at the site. Only some plinths and one office have been shown in them. We can, thus, safely infer that OPs have not started the construction within the agreed time, as per letter of OPs Ex.C-8 dated 23.01.2016. The construction is stated to be started on 15.04.2015. No buyers agreement has been executed between the parties. Vide letter dated 14.05.2015 Ex.C-7 on the record, GMADA approved the project Shaurya Ananda in above time, wherein the complainant booked the apartment.
- The GMADA approved this project on 30.03.2015. The OPs received the money from the complainant before the approval of the project in this case. This is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The obligation of the promoter for developing a land into colony has been stated in Section 5 of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995. Section 12 of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 further lays down where the promoter fails to give possession, in accordance with the terms of his agreement, of a plot or an apartment duly completed by the date specified, or any further date agreed to by the parties; the promoter shall be liable to refund the amounts already received by him in respect of that plot or apartments with simple interest at the rate, as may be determined by the competent authority from the date the promoter received the sums till the date the amounts and interest thereon is refunded. There was no approval of the project by GMADA, when the OPs received considerable amount to the extent of Rs.14,50,000/- from the complainant. Receipt of the amount from applicant before approval of the project by the competent authority is unfair trade practice only.
Also Read- Singla Builders Promoters SBP Consumer Complaint in State Commission Punjab
- The OPs have not brought this fact to the notice of the complainant at the time of receipt of the advance money that approval of the project has not been granted by then by the GMADA. It is also mandatory on the part of promoter under Section 3(g) of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 to specify in writing the date by which possession of the plot or apartment is to be handed over and he shall hand over such possession accordingly. Section 3(k) of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 further makes it mandatory that the promoter makes a full and true disclosure of all outgoings, including ground rent, if any, municipal or other taxes, charges for water and electricity, revenue assessment, interest on mortgages or other encumbrances, if any. Section 5 of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995 obligates the promoter to apply to competent authority for grant of permission for development of land into colony and separate permission will be necessary for each colony. The competent authority can refuse or grant such permission under Section 5(2) of Punjab Apartment & Property Regulation Act, 1995.
- The competent authority has to issue a license in prescribed form, where it grants permission for development of colony to promoter and license issued is valid for the period of three years, which is renewable from time to time on payment prescribed fee. Herein in this case, the OPs received the money from the complainant before obtaining any license to develop a land into colony from the competent authority, as per letter Ex.C-7 on the record. This act of OPs is an unfair trade practice. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to refund of deposited amount with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The relief of grant of separate compensation to complainant for above act of OPs is not sustainable in view of law laid down by Top Court in “Chief Administrator, HUDA & another Vs. Shakuntla Devi” 2017.
Also Read- Consumer RERA Complaint Maya Garden City (Barnala Builders)
- The Apex Court had held in this authority that complainant is not entitled to such compensation awarded by the State Commission and the National Commission. The complainant suffered injury due to delay in handing over the possession, as there was definite escalation in the cost of construction. The Apex Court held in this authority that award of interest would have been sufficient to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to delay in handing over the possession. In view of this authority of Apex Court, the complainant is entitled to refund of the deposited amount with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation.
- Since, it is a case of unfair trade practice and complainant is held entitled to interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The OPs are directed to pay the amount deposited by the complainant along with interest @18% per annum with amount of cost of litigation, they shall be payable by the OPs to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Arguments in this complaint were heard on 17.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules. The judgement decided in this case was done by J.S. Klar Presiding Judicial member and Surinder Pal Kaur Member.
Also Read- CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS
CONCLUSION
The judgement came in this decision was at all justified from all the legal point that was required for this case. And the fraud commit by the respondent was being brought to justice by the judge and they have to pay penalty for their wrong sins and break the trust of the complainants which awfully destroyed their goodwill in the market.
This post is written by Sammyak Jain.
For case specific advice please contact best top expert Consumer Court Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Kharar Derabassi etc.
More on 99888-17966.
