Sunday, August 9, 2015
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Friday, November 28, 2014
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
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, 1st 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
Monday, October 20, 2014
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:
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.
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.
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
Friday, July 25, 2014
0 Promoters(Builders) will be liable to Punish upto 7 years
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."
"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."
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."
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
1 Addresses of Consumer Courts in Punjab
Addresses of Consumer Courts in Punjab
From Source: http://www.foodsuppb.gov.in/cpa.html
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
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 |
Monday, June 16, 2014
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
