Tricity Media Cooperative Housing Society Complaint

Post covers Tricity Media Cooperative Housing Society Complaint for failure to deliver plot on time. Thus, Refund.

The court directed society to handover the possession of plat with interest. In the eventuality, they are unable to give, then refund of the entire amount shall be made with compensation.

Case Title- AMIT MAHAJAN v. TRICITY MEDIA CO-OPERATIVE

This post talks about a suit file before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh where a complaint was filed by the complainant, Amit Mahajan, against the opposite parties, the Tricity Media Corporative House through its secretary and the President, Tricity Media Cooperative House under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking directions for:

a) to deliver possession of a developed residential plot, measuring 200 sq.yds. in Sector 113, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali;
b) to refund the entire amount, as deposited by the complainant, i.e. ₹24,62,510/-, along with interest at the rate of 18% from the respective dates of deposit, which comes to ₹16,67,707/-;
c) to pay compensation of ₹6,00,000/-, on account of mental loss, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; and
d) to pay ₹3,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Also Read- Varun Puri v. The Tricity Media Co-operative House Building

COMPLAINANT:

Amit Mahajan

RESPONDENTS:

The Tricity Media Co-operative House Building Society Limited, SCO No.545, Sector 70, Mohali, through its Secretary.
President, The Tricity Media Co-operative House Building Society Limited, SCO No.545, Sector 70, Mohali.

CORUM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member.

Also Read- Complaint ADC No.1676 of 2020UR – RERA Punjab

FACTS:

The complainant was interested in purchasing a residential plot in Mohali. As such, he contacted the opposite parties and visited their office at Mohali. After discussion, the opposite parties advised him to sign Membership Form of opposite party No.1-Society for purchasing a plot of 200 sq.yds. Accordingly, Membership Form was signed by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant paid a sum of ₹1,80,000/-, dated 24.01.2011 in favour of the opposite parties and ₹2,510/-, dated 24.01.2011. At the time of becoming member of opposite party No.1- Society, the complainant was assured that the development would be done within a short span of time and payment schedule was also given to him. The complainant opted for initial deposit of ₹1.80 lac, ₹2.25 lac, ₹2.7 lac and ₹4.5 lac respectively. It was one of the clauses that if the member failed to pay the due amount, then he will have to pay the charges at the rate of ₹50/- per lac per day on the outstanding amount, as penalty. In the said Society, approximately 250 plots of various sizes, i.e. 200, 250,300 and 500 sq.yds., were carved out. It was also one of the conditions of allotment that in case of shortfall of the plot in a particular category, the allotment would be done by way of draw of lots. It was also assured that the Society would obtain the CLU before 30.05.2011 and thereafter would start the development works at site and the development cost would be worked out at that stage. After the payment of membership fee and part payment, the complainant was allotted Share Certificate on 13.09.2011, entitling him to ownership of 200 sq.yds. plot in Sector 113, Mohali. The complainant deposited a total sum of ₹24,62,510/- with the opposite parties.

After the payment of cost of the plot, many visits were made by the complainant and his brother, Akshay Mahajan, to the office of the opposite parties, requesting them to hand over possession of the plot, as 7 years had already passed from the date of booking. Till the date of filing of the complaint, the opposite parties had not delivered possession of the plot. The very objective of the Society stands forfeited, as it failed to achieve its purpose because it is not in a position to hand over the possession of the plot even in near future.

Also Read- Tricity Consumer Courts Bar Assn fumes over adverse orders

Instead of completing the project, the opposite parties had been raising demands of instalments from the complainant, vide various demand letters. Vide letter dated 15.11.2016, the complainant was informed that the development work of the Society has been started and demand of ₹1,00,000 was raised. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot within the stipulated period. Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice dated 06.03.2018, calling upon the opposite parties to refund the entire amount deposited by him, along with interest at the rate of 18%, but to no effect. After service of legal notice, the complainant, through his attorney i.e. his brother, approached the opposite parties and thereafter negotiations started between the parties. The complainant also came to India from USA for this purpose. However, the complainant was asked to sign the Option Form, whereby he was forcefully compelled to change the option for property booked at the time of applying for membership. The opposite parties also tried to hand over the project to third party against the wishes of the allottees. The complainant sent another legal notice dated 23.09.2019, requesting the opposite parties, either to deliver possession of the plot within 7 days, or to refund the entire deposited amount, along with compound interest at the rate of 18%. However, nothing fruitful has been done.

Also Read- Tricity Media Co-Operative House … vs Lal Chand on 2 July, 2021

ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

The objections raised by the opposite parties against the complainant was that the complainant was barred by the limitation as the suit was filed after the statutory period of two years. They also argues that the complainant does doe fall under the category of “consumer” as he is a member and shareholder of the opposite party no.1. The proof of which is the Share Certificate issued to the complainant, for the investment made by him in the society. The complainant is said to have placed reliance on forged documents and stated that the complaint is frivolous and false. The allegations made by the complainant have been denied other than the fact that the complainant visited office of opposite parties No.1 & 2 many times and the filling of the Membership Form and allotment of the plot and thereafter issuance of Share Certificate in the name of the complainant, which were admitted. It has been further pleaded that since the Society works for the welfare of its members, so it is not liable for payment of compensation and refund. The contract of development works has already been given to Geetu Construction Private Limited in the year 2010-2011 and agreement was executed with the approval of the concerned members, as per rules laid down in the bylaws. The complainant has levelled false allegations against the opposite parties.

Also Read- Lal Chand v. The Tricity Media Co-operative Housing Building Society Ltd.

ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

It was contended that the by the counsel for the complainant that he had deposited the due amounts with the opposite parties towards the price of the plot, in question, as per payment schedule and the payments were completed much earlier. After the initial payment on 24.01.2011, there has been no progress at the project site and no likelihood of delivery of possession of the plot in the near future. The opposite parties also failed to show required sanctions, as no evidence qua it has been produced with the reply filed by them. Even there is no evidence produced on record to show that the contract for development of the project has been given to alleged Geetu Construction Pvt. Ltd. The complainant had visited the site and taken pictures which clearly showed that no development was in progress. There has been a deficiency in the service of the opposite parties and hence the complainant should be awarded with the said compensations mentioned in the complaint.

Also Read- Failure of builder to obtain occupation certificate is deficiency in Services

JUDGEMENT:

Firstly, the court dismissed the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer as he was a member of the society. It said that this objection is not maintainable.

Secondly, with regard to the dispute of providing the plot and its development by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1-Society had promised for providing basic amenities and development at the site, in question, and as such, the same certainly amounts to rendering of ‘service’ as defined in the Act. There is element of ‘deficiency in service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ due to non-performance of the contract, whereby facilities were to be provided to the complainant by way of plots.

Thirdly, regarding the objection of period of limitation raised by the opposite parties, it was admitted that the complainant had made the entire payment towards the plot to the opposite parties but the possession of the plot had not been delivered to the complainant till date. Nor was the amount refunded. It is now well settled that in such cases there is a continuous cause of action till the possession is delivered or the amount is refunded along with interest, compensation and costs etc. In the case of Navin Sharma (Dr.) & Ors v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, it was held by the national commission that unless and until the possession of the flat is delivered to the complainant, they have got continuous cause of action.

Also Read- Deficiency in Services – Legalseva.net

The court held that since both these receipts are issued/signed by the same person, so it cannot be said that receipt No.342 is forged and it is proved that the same has been issued on behalf of opposite party No.1 itself. Similar is the position regarding receipt No.885 dated 15.12.2014 for ₹1,00,000/-. This receipt has been signed by the same person, who has signed receipts No.546, 625 and 1323; which have been duly admitted by the opposite parties. Therefore, the plea of the opposite parties that receipts No.342 and 885 are forged, is not tenable and is belied from their own act and conduct.

Despite receipt of entire sale consideration, the opposite parties failed to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant within a reasonable period. These facts and circumstances clearly prove that the opposite parties have violated various provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (in short, “PAPRA”).

The opposite parties were held liable for the failure of delivery of the physical possession of the plot along with the agreed amenities and facilities with the Completion Certificate and to execute the Sale/ Conveyance Deed in favour of the complainant. They were liable to compensation at 12% rate of interest for the delay caused, till the physical possession of the plot is delivered to the complainant. If they are unable to transfer the plot to the possession of the complainant then the opposite party shall refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant along with the compensation for financial loss. The complainant is also entitled to suitable litigation expenses and compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

The compliance of this order shall be made by the opposite parties within a period of 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order.

Also Read- Trinity Multi State Co-operative Credit Society Consumer Complaint

For case specific advice, please connect with Top Best Expert Legal Consultants Attorneys in Real Estate/Property Estate/Consumer Court and Consumer Protection Dispute/ Consumer Grievances and Complaints/RERA Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.