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