0 Consumer Complaint against Parkwood Glade Mohali

Consumer Complaint against Parkwood Glade, Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 116, District Mohali

Source: http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/12647141118150821117Dharvinder%20.htm

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.514 of 2012

                                 Date of institution:          08.11.2012

                                               Date of Decision:            14.11.2014

1.     Dharvinder Pal Ahuja son of Rajinder Singh.

2.     Ramandeep Kaur wife of  Dharvinder Pal Ahuja

Both residents of House No.N-101, First Floor, Parkwood Glade, Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 116, District Mohali through Rajinder Singh resident of House No.N-101, First Floor, Parkwood Glade, Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 116, District SAS Nagar Mohali, power of attorney holder of both Dharvinder Pal Ahuja and Ramandeep Kaur.

                                                                        ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.     Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., 1001, Hemkunt Chambers, 89, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110 019 through its Director.

2.     Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd., Parkwood Glade, Kharar-Landran Road, Sector 116, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Manager.

3.     Gurdeep Singh Walia resident of House No.314, Phase 3-A, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

4.     Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited (DHFL), SCO 62, 1^st Floor, above Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Shri Divjyot Singh Sandhu, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri I.P.Singh, counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2.

                None for OP No.3.

                Shri Mohinder Singh, counsel for OP No.4

(A.B. AGGARWAL, MEMBER)

ORDER

                The complainants have filed the present complaint through Rajinder Singh, their power of attorney. The case of the complainants is that they entered into an agreement (Ex.C-1) with the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) No.1 and 2 for purchase of flat measuring Super Built Up area 1675 sq. ft. at a basic price of Rs.35,59,375/- at a rate of Rs.2125/- per sq. ft. in their township in Sector 116, Mohali.  The complainants made down payment of Rs.5.00 lacs through cheque dated 21.01.2011.  The Manager of OP Nos.1 and 2 introduced OP No.3 with the complainants as he would help the complainants in getting the loan from OP No.4.  OP No.3 asked the complainants to sign certain documents and full the formalities for the loan which they did. OP No.3 took Rs.50,000/-  vide cheque dated 01.12.2010 Ex.C-2 as commission from the complainants for getting the loan sanctioned from OP No.4. The complainants completed all the formalities of the loan and handed over all the documents to Manvender Singh Grewal, Manager of OP Nos.1 2 in February, 2011 but he delayed the matter and did not submit the papers to OP No.4 in time due to which the loan was disbursed to the complainant very late.  The Manager of OP Nos.1 and 2 did not handed over the offer of possession eve after release of loan amount. The letter of possession and allotment letter were handed over to the complainants by OP No.3 on 05.04.2011, who has been authorized by OP Nos.1 and 2 to deal with the prospective customers. Due to late payment to OP No.1, it imposed late payment charges/penalty of Rs.1,34,484/- upon the complainants.  As per Clause 19 (a) of the Flat Buyers Agreement, the possession was to be handed over to the complainants by 30.06.2011 and on failure to handover the possession, OP Nos.1 and 2 agreed to pay the pre EMI till the possession is handed over to the complainants.  When the possession was not delivered by 30.06.2011, the complainants asked the OP Nos.1 and 2 to deposit pre EMI to OP No.4 but OP Nos.1 and 2 asked the complainants to deposit the pre EMI to OP No.4 first and then show the receipts of pre EMIs and then they would give the said amount back to the complainants. The complainants informed the OP Nos.1 and 2 that no such condition exists in the tripartite agreement but OP Nos.1 and 2 refused to pay the EMIs to OP No.4. OP Nos.1 and 2 started giving cheques to the complainants to reimburse the amount given by the complainants to OP No.4 but stopped in the month of September. On asking by the complainants, Manager of OP No.2 refused to reimburse the pre EMI and said that no more reimbursement would be made by them to the complainants.  The complainants paid the pre EMIs to OP No.4 from October 2011 to June,2012. The OP Nos.1 and 2 also promised to provide facility of club and took Rs.40,000/- from the complainants as club membership fee at the time of agreement. But till the date of filing the complaint club facility has not been provided by the OPs.  The complainants raised a loan of Rs.22,76,355/- but OP No.4 released only Rs.22,00,000/- and remaining Rs.76,355/- was directly paid to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company whereas the complainants were never interested in the insurance. On 18.10.2012 the complainants came to know that the super built up area of their flat  is not 1740 sq. ft.  but is less than this. Due to late delivery of the possession, the complainants were forced to stay in rented accommodation  from June, 2011 to May, 2012 and paid monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- .  The OP Nos.1 and 2 had also taken Rs.42,71,000/- the total price of the flat from the complainant but did not give the possession and used the  amount of the complainants.

                With these allegations, the complainants have sought directions to OP Nos.1 and 2 to refund them Rs.1,94,661/- the amount of Pre EMIs paid by them to OP No.4; Rs.1,34,484/- as penalty; Rs.1,98,000/- as rent paid by them; Rs.76,355/- paid towards insurance charges; to pay them Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as legal expenses.

2.             OP Nos.1 and 2 in the preliminary objections of their written statement have pleaded that the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands. The complainants have raised disputed question of facts and law. Sale deed of the flat was executed on 24.05.2012 after receipt of full payment and physical possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants on 23.05.2012. The complainants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Flat Buyers Agreement. Due to delayed payments by the complainants the interest was to be charged in terms of the agreement. The OP Nos.1 and 2 had been communicating with the complainants vide their letters dated 22.04.2011, 20.07.2011, 09.09.2011, 03.11.2011, 16.11.2012 and 16.12.2011 to make the payments.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainants applied for loan to some banks and their case was rejected which was on the basis of record maintained by CIBL.  The letter of offer-cum-acceptance dated 25.03.2011 was given by OP No.4 to the complainants and it was for them to accept the same and OP Nos.1 and 2 had nothing to do with the same. The OPs agreed to pay the Pre EMI for six months only and the same were duly paid till 30.09.2011. The club facility is not a basic amenity to occupy the flat. They have denied that the super built up area of the flat is not 1740 sq. ft.  Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, OP Nos.1 and 2 have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.3 in the written statement has pleaded that he was working as recovery agent with HDFC Bank. Complainant No.1 was defaulter of the bank and OP No.3 make settlement with complainants on behalf of bank. He has also joined IELTS training class with complainant No.2. At that time complainant No.1 sought some financial help from OP No.3 which he made. The complainant No.1 returned the amount vide cheque dated 01.12.2010 which was not as a commission.  The delay in loan was due to previous defaulter record of the complainants in CIBL. Letter of possession was not handed over to it by OP Nos.1 and 2. Denying any deficiency in service on his part, OP No.3 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against him.

4.             OP No.4 in the written statement has pleaded that this Forum does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is admitted that the complainant raised loan of Rs.22,76,355/- from it.  Insurance policy was one of the conditions of the sanction letter and the complainants accepted the same without raising any objection. If they were not willing for the insurance, they could cancel the same at the time of its issuance but at this stage they could not be allowed to raise this plea.  Denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.4 has also sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Evidence of the complainants consist of their affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.

6.             Evidence of OP Nos.1 and 2 consists of affidavit of Manminder Pal Singh their AGM Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-11.

7.             Evidence of OP No.3 consists of his affidavit Ex.OP-3/1. Evidence of OP No.4 consists of affidavit of Gautam Chaudhary, Law officer Ex.OP-4/1.

8.             It is an admitted fact that the complainants were allotted flat No.N-101, First Floor, in Sector 116, Mohali by OP Nos.1 and 2  which was financed by OP No.4. It is admitted fact that tripartite agreement was executed between the parties. It is further an admitted fact that possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainants by 30.06.2011.  It is the case of the complainants that as per the conditions of the tripartite agreement, in the event of failure of OP Nos.1 and 2 to deliver the possession, they  would pay the pre EMI to OP No.4 till the possession is handed over to the complainants.  It is an admitted fact that possession of the flat could not be delivered to the complainants by 30.06.2011.  It is admitted fact that the possession of the flat was handed over to the complainants on 25.05.2012 with delay of over 10 months. Clause-3 of Ex.C-3 relates to payment of Pre EMI by the developer on behalf of borrower but the period is left as (-) in Ex.C-3. During the course of proceedings, OP Nos.1 and 2 moved MA application for directing OP No.4 to produce original tripartite agreement but inspite of directions to OP No.4 it failed to produce this document. Therefore, in view of this adverse inference is drawn against OP No.4 and presumption can be drawn that the complainants have themselves paid  pre EMIs to OP No.4  for the period of delayed possession which otherwise was to be paid by OP Nos.1 and 2 on behalf of complainants. Thus, in this way the complainants are entitled to the amount of interest on the amount of pre EMIs paid by them to OP No.4.

9.             The allotment letter dated 21.01.2011 (Ex.C-4) of the flat was received by the complainants on 05.04.2011 as is evident from the receipt mentioned on the letter itself.   The complainants paid 15% of the price of the flat at the time of booking on 21.01.2011 and  as per opted  payment plan the complainants paid 80% of the payment by 04.05.2011 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of allotment letter dated 05.04.2011.  The remaining payment was to be paid at the time of offer of possession.  As per the complainants the OPs have charged Rs.1,34,484/- towards late payment but although the allotment letter is of dated 21.01.2011 but it was actually received by the complainants on 05.04.2011 and the payment of 80% of sale consideration was made by the complainants  by 04.05.2011 which is well within a period of 30 days from the receipt of allotment letter. Late delivery of allotment letter per se shows unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2.   Thus the complainants are entitled to refund of amount of Rs.1,34,484/- charged as late payment interest/penalty.

10.           As per the complainants an amount of Rs.76,355/- has been charged by OP No.4 on account of insurance of the loan.  However, the OP No.4 has not issued any insurance policy to the complainants towards their loan account.  Since the OP No.4 has not issued any insurance policy towards the loan account of the complainants it was bound to issue the policy to the complainants.

11.           The OP Nos.1 and have charged Rs.40,000/-  as club membership from the complainants. But they have failed to produce any document regarding existence of club facility.

12.           OP No.3 is only  a facilitator in procurement of loan from OP No.4 by the complainants and no relief  has been claimed against OP No.3.

13.           The complaint is hereby allowed with the following directions to OP Nos.1,2 and 4:

(a)    OP No.1 and 2 to refund to the complainants an amount of Rs.1,34,484/- (Rs. One lac thirty four thousand four hundred eighty four only) charged from the complainants as  interest/penalty.

(b)    OP Nos.1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.1,94,661/- (Rs.One lac ninety four thousand six hundred sixty one only)   to the complainants amount of pre EMIs which was agreed to be paid by OP Nos.1 and 2 to OP No.4 with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit  till  actual refund.

(c)    OP No.4 to handover a copy of the insurance policy to the complainants towards the loan account within a period of one month from receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(d)    OP No.4 is further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(e)    OP Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of above directions be made by the Ops within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

November 14, 2014.

                                                                   (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member

0 Somdatt Landmark Sector-116- DONT HAVE- Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificate

The Group Housing Project Launched in Sector-116 Sante Majra Village on Landran Kharar Road. by SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd with marketing partner MongaRealtor.

SDB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and MongaRealtors Pvt Ltd- Give Illegal Possession without Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate.

Municipal Council Kharar Said:

RTI:

RTI Reply:

0 MC- Kharar said in RTI reply-Its Illegal to give possession without Completion and Occupancy certificate

Somdatt Landmark Sector-116 gave possession without Completion Certificate and Occupation Certificate. More than 3 years spent, But till today they did not take any Completion certificate and Occupation certificate.

As per MC-Kharar building by- laws and PAPRA-1995 (Punjab Apartment and Property regulatory Act-1995) -It is Illegal to give possession without Completion Certificate.

Municipal Council Kharar said in the Reply of RTI.
  So think before- buying property in such project. Think about CAMPA COLA Society.
You can search about these projects in GOOGLE.

RTI: 

RTI Reply

0 Somdatt Landmark Sector-116 approved by Municipal Council Kharar

This project is approved by Muncipal Council Kharar.
After lot of difficulties I got at least some information about this project.

Here is the approval letter from MC- Kharar.

RTI copy

Their reply

0 Promoters(Builders) will be liable to Punish upto 7 years

source:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Tough-rules-to-rein-in-builders-flouting-norms/articleshow/38983290.cms

Tough rules to rein in builders flouting norms

CHANDIGARH: Despite irregularities in the case of upcoming projects, promoters will be liable to punishment of up to seven years if they fail to develop the project in accordance with rules. However, provisions may have come too late as a series of projects without proper amenities have already come up.

"All these years, there was no provision in the Act for prohibiting development of illegal colonies and illegal construction, as a result of which a number of unauthorized colonies have come up," said an official.

An attempt has been made to make existing rules stringent with the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation (Amendment) Bill, 2014. Despite "PUDA-approved' or "GMADA-approved" claims of developers, many projects in the state have not been completed in time or possession has been given to buyers without proper development of the colony.

"Buyers from Chandigarh are heading towards Kharar and Zirakpur, where a flat can be bought for Rs 35 to Rs 40 lakh. But the catch is that these areas do not have proper sewerage, roads are bad and power supply is erratic," said Davinder Kumar, president of Chandigarh Property Dealers' Association.

According to the amended Act, if the promoter does not develop the land in line with the provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, he or his agent can be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of three years which can be extended to seven years and minimum fine of Rs 2 lakh, which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

"The provision may have been made in the law but there is no system of regular inspection of the housing projects to check for compliance. Smaller housing units shown to have been constructed for the economically weak are so highly priced that the purpose is defeated," said Amarjit Kumar, a property consultant from Patiala.

Meanwhile, to check connivance of officials, the new law says, "Where an offence is committed by any Central government or state government or municipality or board or authority or it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance on the part of an official, he will be liable to prosecution."

2 Punjab Apartment and Property Regularisation (Amendment) Bill, 2014

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Apartment-and-property-regularization-bill-gets-go-ahead/articleshow/38889216.cms

Apartment and property regularization bill gets go ahead

CHANDIGARH: Despite Congress legislators picking holes in the Punjab Apartment and Property Regularisation (Amendment) Bill, 2014, it was given the go-ahead in the assembly on Tuesday. It was pointed out that while the colonizer and builder remain at the helm of affairs, the Bill holds the promoter liable for most irregularities in the project. For instance, the promoter will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services for a period of five years from the date of issuance of completion certificate or the date of transfer.

The opposition party also objected to the requirement for a project to be called a colony - it should have an area of not less than one thousand square meters divided or proposed to be divided by way of registered sale or through lease or transfer.

A promoter has been defined as owner of the land on which the colony is developed, a colonizer will be a person who develops the piece of land into a colony, whether or not with constructed structures. A section of the parts will be reserved for poor people as per the amendments. The promoter will reserve 5% of the gross project area in case of colony and 10% of the apartments in case of apartments as specified by the government for economically weaker sections.

Deputy chief minister Sukhbir Badal said the amended Bill will help in ensuring proper construction across Punjab as there were many grey areas in the existing law. "Apartments were not defined and this was creating problems. From now on, apartment building would mean a building constructed on any land, containing five or more apartments or two or more buildings with a total of five or more apartments or any existing building converted into five or more apartments."

1 Addresses of Consumer Courts in Punjab

Addresses of Consumer Courts in Punjab
From Source: http://www.foodsuppb.gov.in/cpa.html

Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Address

Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Chandigarh,
Plot No. 1037, Sector 37-A, Dakshan Road, Chandigarh,
Phone No. 0172-2693737.
Email :- pun-sforum@nic.in      

Addresses of the District Fora

Sr.No	District Name	Office Address
1.	Amritsar	S.C.O. No. 10, B-Block, 1st Floor, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Bank of India Building, Amritsar
2.	Barnala	District Consumer Forum, H.No. 7, Shaheed Jeeta Singh Shopping Complex, Near Court Complex, Barnala
3.	Bathinda	District Consumer Forum, Govt. H. No. 16-D, Civil Station Near Residence of SSP, Bathinda
4.	Faridkot	District Consumer Forum, Judicial Court Complex, Faridkot
5.	Fatehgarh Sahib	District Consumer Forum, Old Court Complex, Fategarh Sahib
7.	Fazilka
8.	Firozpur	District Consumer Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Stadium, Near Railway Bridge, Firozpur
9.	Gurdaspur	District Consumer Forum, Kothi No. 80-A, Jail Road, Gurdaspur
10.	Hoshiarpur	District Consumer Forum, Mini Secretariat 3rd Floor, Hoshiarpur
11.	Jalandhar	District Consumer Forum, Room No. 217-220, 2nd Floor, Administrative Complex, Jalandhar
12.	Kapurthala	District Consumer Forum, Building No. B-XVII-23, 1st Floor, Fateh Bazar, Opp. Old Hospital, Amritsar Road, Kapurthala
13.	Ludhiana	District Consumer Forum, Room No. 7, Old Wing, New Judicial Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana
14.	Mansa	District Consumer Forum, Sardar Sita Singh Building, Opp. New District Court Complex, Mansa
15.	Moga	District Consumer Forum, Room No. B-209 to B-214, 2nd Floor, Beas Block, New Administrative Complex, Moga
16.	Mohali(Ajitgarh)	District Consumer Forum, SCF No. 72, 1st and 2nd Floor, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali)
17.	Muktsar Sahib	District Consumer Forum, District Court Complex, Kotakpura Road, Muktsar
18.	Patiala	District Consumer Forum, Old CMO Office Building, 9-A Baradari, Opposite Nihal Bagh, Patiala
19.	Pathankot
20.	Ropar	District Consumer Forum, Secretariat Complex, Bachat Bhawan, Top Floor, Ropar
21.	Sangrur	District Consumer Forum, Judicial Court Complex, Sangrur
22.	Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr)	District Consumer Forum, Chhokran Mohalla, SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr)
23.	Tarntaran	District Consumer Forum, Near FCI Godowns, Railway Crossing Muradpur, Tarn Taran

2 Builder penalized for Delayed possession: District Consumer Forum Mohali order.

Source Link:

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/12647140522144923359Veena%20.htm

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.335 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          22.08.2013

                                          Date of Decision:            22.05.2014       

1.     Veena Rani daughter of Mulakh Raj, resident of House No.B-5/921, Purani Suraj Nagri (Ist Chowk), Gali No.4, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, Punjab.

2.     Chandan Mankatala son of Roshan Lal and resident of  House No.B-5/921, Purani Suraj Nagri (Ist Chowk), Gali No.4, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur, Punjab.

    ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.    South City Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Singla Builders and Promoters Ltd.), Chandigarh – Kharar Highway, Mohali Punjab.

2.    South City Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. At SBP Group NH-22, Chandigarh Ambala Highway, Derabassi, Punjab.

3.    South City Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., South City, Village Bishanpura, VIP Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali 140603.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Shri Jaspal Singh Khara, cl. for the complainants.

Opposite Parties ex-parte.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The case of the complainants is that on the basis of brochure and assurances given by the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’), they decided to purchase three bedroom flat with  total area of 1510 sq. ft.  and deposited an amount of Rs.5,54,850/-. The total cost of the flat was Rs.36,99,000/-. The OPs issued allotment letter dated 10.06.2011 Ex.C-2 in favour of the OPs by. An agreement to sell Ex.C-3 was also executed between the complainant and the OPs. The balance payment was made vide receipts Ex.C-4 to 12 as per agreement to sell.  The complainant have already made the payment demanded vide letter of the OPs dated 12.05.2013 and nothing is due towards the complainants as on date.  As per Clause-10 of the allotment letter the OPs had promised to hand over the possession on or before 31.12.2012 which has not been given till date.  Instead of this the Ops compelled the complainants to sign one maintenance agreement before giving offer of possession. On their visit to the project site on 24.07.2013 the complainants came to know that the OPs have failed to construct proper walls, doors, bathrooms and which is evident from Photostat Ex.C-13 to C-26.  The OPs have also not constructed any children play area, jogging track and convenience shops. The project also lacks proper security at the gates and intercom facility  The complainants sent legal notice dated 07.07.2013 Ex.C-27 pointing out all the deficiencies.

                Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants have sought directions to the OPs handover the possession to them after completing all work in the flat;  to provide all the basic facilities within specified time; to pay them an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month @ Rs.5/- for the period of delayed possession;  to pay them Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.             Notice issued to the OPs were not received back served or unserved. Presuming their due service and none having appeared for them, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.             In the ex-parte evidence, complainant No.1 has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-28.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainants and gone through the written arguments filed by him.

5.             Before going into the merits of the case, we while perusing the contents of the complaint, it has been found that the complainant has sought possession of the flat in question besides claiming other reliefs. As per the complainant, Ex.C-2 i.e. allotment letter dated 10.06.2011 and agreement Ex.C-3 the total price of the flat in question is Rs.36,99,000/- . As per para 6 of the complaint the complainant has made various payments against the said consideration amount on different dates and as on 22.08.2013 i.e. the date of filing of the present complaint nothing is due towards the complainant, meaning thereby that the complainant has paid the full amount of Rs.36,99,000/- to the OPs. Thus, as per prayer clause the complainant is seeking possession of the flat in question besides claiming other reliefs. As per Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where the value of goods and services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed Rs.20.00 lacs. In the present complaint, the flat in question, for which the possession is being sought as in the prayer clause is valued at about Rs.37.00 lacs which per se exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.

6.             Therefore, without going into the merits of the complaint, the present complaint alongwith documents is hereby returned to the complainant for availing the remedy with the appropriate Forum having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 22, 2014.                                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member

0 Mohali District Consumer Forum pass order- Builder will pay 2.5 Lakh to each 8 complaints

All complaint won the case on Surya City Builder and Singla Builders. 

Mohali SAS Nagar District Consumer Forum- order the compensation to all.

[Read complete order: http://sdbbuilder-vs-us.blogspot.in/2014/06/builder-in-mohali-penalized-by-rs225000.html
 and for each particular case- click the Case No.]

SN	State	District	Case No.	Complainant	Respondent	Date of Judgement
1	Punjab	Mohali	CC 141/2013	Liladhar Upreti	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
2	Punjab	Mohali	CC 142/2013	Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
3	Punjab	Mohali	CC 145/2013	Mrs. Indira Priyadarsini Jena	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
4	Punjab	Mohali	CC 146/2013	Varun Dhand	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
5	Punjab	Mohali	CC 148/2013	Mrs. Parminder Kaur	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
6	Punjab	Mohali	CC143/2013	Gurnam Singh	Surya City Builders & another	20/01/2014
7	Punjab	Mohali	CC144/2013	Gurvinder Kaur	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
8	Punjab	Mohali	CC147/2013	Harwinder Singh	Surya City Builder & another	20/01/2014
8 record(s) found

0 Builder in Mohali -penalized by Rs.2,25,000/

Source Link:

http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/1264714012014071240Gurvinder.htm

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.144 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          11.04.2013

                                                    Date of Decision:            20.01.2014

Mrs. Gurvinder Kaur w/o Davinder Singh, r/o Flat No.3/B, Comfort Green Homes, Village Khanpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Surya City Builders & Developers Private Limited, # 303, Shivalik Enclave, Landran Road, Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab, through its Managing Director.

2.     Singla Builders & Promoters Limited, Corp. Office – Desumajra, Chandigarh-Kharar Road, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali through its Managing Director.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Dr.   S.S. Dhaliwal, Member

Mrs. H.K. Ghuman, Member.

Present:    Shri J.S. Bains, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Neeraj Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant’s case is that she purchased from the opposite parties (for short ‘the OPs’)  flat No.3/B, Comfort Green Homes, Village Khanpur, Kharar comprising 930 sq. ft. area consisting of 2 bedrooms, 2 toilets, D/D, kitchen, open car parking for a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- . The sale deed Ex.C-1 was executed on 17.11.2011.   The complainant made all the required payments to the OPs as per schedule and took the possession of the flat on 17.11.2011. At that time the complainant was assured by the OPs that the following basic amenities would be provided as per brochure (Ex.C-3):

        (a)    Spacious car parking space.

        (b)    M.C. water supply.

        (c)    Privacy.

        (d)    Security

        (e)    RCC roofing.

        (f)     Hot and cold water provision.

        (g)    Modern kitchen.

                Believing the version and documents shown by the OPs, the complainant purchased the said flat. The OPs have not provided the aforesaid basic amenities and many more as promised. The project is also not complete and upto standard.  The complainant is facing following problems after taking over possession of the flat:

        1.     Sewerage flush system is not working upto mark.

2.     The toilet jet is not on its proper place and the kitchen taps are not judiciously laid on its proper place.

3.     Electricity meters and its wires are not properly covered up.

4.     No proper space for car parking and no parking number is mentioned.

5.     Lack of security.

6.     Rainy water accumulated into corridors, roof of all the flats, on the entrance of the apartment.

7.     Water tanks are not properly covered up and there is no direct supply of fresh water/M.C. even for drinking purpose stored water is being used.

8.     Poor wooden flooring and workmanship of tiles.

9.     There is no chimney provision and the holes for exhaust fan are smaller.

10.   The mummties are not covered up by glass due to which rainy water enters into the flat.

11.   Construction work on the roof of flats is not completed.

12.   RCC roofing work is not upto mark as cement plaster is falling down and there is continuous smelling.

                Thus the complainant has been delivered defective possession of the flat as the aforesaid and further basic amenities have not been provided.  There is a lot of difference between the sample flat shown to the complainant at the time of purchase and the flat now handed over to the complainant. The OPs are not bothering to the written request of the complainant. Legal notice sent to the OPs on 12.12.2012 Ex.C-5 has not been replied.

                With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to pay her Rs.4.00 lacs for not providing the basic amenities and Rs.11,000/- as litigation cost.

2.             In the joint written statement, the OPs have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed on false and misconceived facts. The complaint is an abuse of process of law. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and the same can only be decided by a civil court. The complaint is barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. On merits, it is pleaded that no agreement to sell was ever entered into between OP No.2. The complainant made delayed payments and short on numerous occasions. OP No.1 has adhered to all the specifications as assured. However, the brochure annexed with the complaint was conceptual and indicative one and this fact was made understand to the complainant. The complainant took the possession after satisfying on each and every count and then only paid the balance amount. The sewerage system is very much in order. All the plumbing work has been done in a proper and satisfactory manner. Internal electricity fitting is to be provided by the OPs. Electricity meters have been installed by the Punjab State Electricity Board and the OPs have no control over the manner it has been done away. There exists the provision of car parking for each house.  The residents including the complainant have been requested to constitute a society in order to carry out general maintenance work. The OPs are ready to provide for the security and privacy of the houses on payment of the maintenance charges by the residents. There is no water accumulation and the water tanks on the terrace are in excellent condition. Clean water is being supplied which is being used by the inhabitants. No wooden flooring was ever assured and provided. The tiles provided are of good quality in commensurate with the cost of the house and have been fitted under the expert supervision.  The entire structure and other provisions are as per the layout plan of the house. The entire construction has been carried out under the expert supervision of the professional contractors and architectures and good quality of material has been used. Denying any deficiency of service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavits Ex.CW1/1 & Ex.CW-1/2 and documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-15.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of joint affidavit of Sudarshan Verma and Amandeep Singla  Ex.OP-1/1 and affidavit of Vipul Sud, Director of VSDA Builders Ex.OP-1/2 and documents Exs.OP-1 to OP-18.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them. 

6.             Undisputedly the complainant is in possession of the flat and has alleged in the present complaint certain defects in the construction as well as lack/improper basic amenities some of which have been mentioned in the brochure and have not been provided at the time of delivery of the possession.  Some of the basic amenities though provided are ineffective and insufficient for proper and healthy living environment in the housing complex developed and constructed by the OPs. Therefore, alleging the deficiency in service on account of defects in the construction and lack of proper basic amenities, the complainant has sought compensation and cost of litigation.

7.             In order to support the allegation the complainant has brought our attention to brochure Ex.C-3 wherein it has been promised that the fit for consumption water supply from the municipal council sources will be provided to the complainant and the same has not been done. The OPs in order to controvert the said allegation took a categoric stand that the brochure is only indicative and is not mandatory and binding. However, still as per the Local Commissioner report  dated 12.08.2013  Para 4 (i) the municipal water supply is in existence and further the OPs have provided alternate source of supply of water by installing submersible pump as is evident from para No.5 of the affidavit of Director of the OPs Ex.OP-1/2. As per the report of the Local Commissioner though there is a water pipe of M.C. water supply, however, near the water pipe there is adjacent pond to the water tank out of which there is some leakage which pollutes the water being supplied through the M.C. water pipe and this water is not fit for drinking. There is no rebuttal evidence from the OPs in this regard. Thus, the allegation of the complainant for fit for consumption water supply is well founded.

8.             Regarding sufficient car parking for each flat, the complainant has brought our attention to the brochure Ex.C-3 wherein it has been promised that each flat owner will be provided sufficient car parking space whereas the same has not been done. In this regard the OPs have relied upon the terms of the brochure which is conceptual and indicative and, therefore, not binding upon the OPs. However, the Local Commissioner report has indicated that no particular area has been allotted in the car parking space for particular flat owner rather it is a common pool facility provided for all the flat owners. There are no specific findings in the Local Commissioner report regarding the number of cars to be parked in the car parking space facility provided in the project in question. Therefore, on the basis of local commissioner report there cannot be any clear cut picture about the sufficiency or insufficiency of the parking space provided. There is no rebuttal evidence from the OPs in this regard. Therefore, the allegation of insufficient car parking space, on the face of it, is proved in favour of the complainant.

9.             As per the complainant there is no outer wall in the building complex which causes encroachment to their privacy and threat to their life and liberty. This fact is duly acknowledged by the Local Commissioner Report. However, the OPs took a different stand that the maintenance of the complex is the responsibility of the residents. Therefore, the residents have to pool their resources for construction of outer boundary wall and maintenance of the complex at their own level. The contention of the OPs in this regard is not appealing to logic as it is the duty of the OPs to provide a fit, healthy and safe living environment with all facilities and amenities in place for the safety and security of the residents of the complex. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant in this regard is well founded.

10.           The height of the boundary wall at the roof top of the building situated in the right side of the two buildings having common entrance is around 2 feet which is too small and short for even a small child to stand safely on the roof. Such a small height on the roof top causes threat to the residents using the roof top. In this regard, the local commissioner report is duly supporting the allegations of the complainant and no rebuttal evidence has come. Hence, this point again is proved in favour of the complainant.

11.           The electric wires coming out from the electric meter are not covered properly leaving loose electric wires posing constant threat of electrocution to the residents of the complex. The Local Commissioner Report in this regard is duly supported alongwith photographs Annexure LC-5 and Ex.C-4/6 to C-4/8.

12.           As per the complainant the sample flat shown and possession of the actual flat handed over to the complainant, there are glaring differences in the both. Photograph Ex.C-4 and C-4/1 shows placement of tiles on the outer wall, tiles in the toilet, provision of window for the cooler, POP  etc. whereas all these features are missing in the actual flat when found on possession of the flat. The said allegation of the complainant is proved from the report of the Local Commissioner as well as copy of the CD produced by the complainant Ex.C-8 and no rebuttal evidence has come from the OPs. So much so that the OPs have failed to remove these defects when pointed out by the complainant alongwith other residents have given the application and even the matter was reported in the media as is evident from Exs.C-11 to C-15. Thus on this account also the allegation of the complainant is proved and the OPs are found deficient in rendering proper and effective services to the complainant.

13.           As per the complainant mummeties i.e. the covered space over the stair case at the roof top has not been provided with window panes causing accumulation of rain water from the stairs to the corridors causing inconvenience to the residents as is evident from Ex.C-4/14. Again in this regard the Local Commissioner Report is fully supporting the allegation of the complainant in this regard.

14.           The taps in the kitchen are not properly fitted as is evident from Ex.C-4/4 and so much so granite fixed on the shelf of the kitchen has been chipped out as is evident from Ex.C-4/5. There is a faulty placement of jet in the toilet causing inconvenience to the users and the said defect though brought in the knowledge of the OPs has not been rectified. Thus this is an architectural defect not looked into by the OPs as is evident from Ex.C-4/2. By and large in case of all the defects being civil in nature, architectural in nature or lack of proper and sufficient basic amenities, the OPs have only one stand which they took under the shelter of the brochure being indicative and conceptual and not binding. The said stand of the OPs does not appeal to logic as definitely the complainant has been successful on all accounts in the preceeding paras. The defects and deficiency duly supported by her own evidence as well as on the strength of local commissioner report is ill founded.

15.           Thus the OPs/developers have failed to produce any evidence as to the completion of the development work of the project as per the facilities and the standard promised in the brochure. In fact the person who purchases a dwelling unit from the developer is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and the sale transaction as regard to the flat in question is not a sale simplictor rather it is a sale transaction coupled with obligation of the developer for development and providing infrastructure which intrinsically constitute element of service in the discharge of developer’s obligations. Therefore, in the present case the developers have failed to discharge their obligations as promised in the brochure and the act of the OPs, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service for which we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the acts of omission on the part of the OPs. While determining the compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others, 2009 SAR (Civil) 935 held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable and also an attempt be made to serve ends of justice. On the one hand it should serve the purpose of recompensing the individual and on the other hand it should aim to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider.  

16.           In the present case the OPs have not brought on record any rebuttal evidence qua the deficiencies pointed out and duly proved by the complainant. It will definitely put huge financial burden on the complainant to get those pointed out defects removed and repaired.

17.           In view of the above discussions, the complaint is hereby allowed. Therefore, we hereby direct the OPs to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.Two lacs twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for not removing the defects and lack of complete development work, mental tension, harassment alongwith costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.  Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

January 20, 2014.

                                                             (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Dr.S.S.Dhaliwal)

Member

                                                        (Mrs. H.K.Ghuman)

Member