Consumer Complaint No. 148 of 2016. Case: Bal Krishan Verma Vs Premium Acre Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberConsumer Complaint No. 148 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Vertika H. Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Parminder Singh, Advocate
JudgesJasbir Singh, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14(1)(d), 17
Judgement DateJanuary 12, 2017
CourtUnion Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Padma Pandey, Member, (Chandigarh)

  1. In brief, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties had launched the project of "TDI City" and the complainant was allured by the Opposite Parties, who depicted the magnanimous benefits of the said project. On believing the glorified benefit of the project of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had applied for a flat in their project vide application dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, unit No. 1701 having an approximately built up area of 1200 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 19.03.2011 (Annexure C-2). Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 21.03.2011 (Annexure C-3). According to Clause 9 of the Agreement, possession of the flat was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of the Agreement i.e. latest by 20.03.2013. It was further stated that the aggregate sale price of the flat, as per the Agreement, was Rs. 32,54,000/- including EDC and PLC. The complainant had opted Down Payment Plan. It was further stated that the complainant made the entire full and final payment in one single installment, in cash, which was paid alongwith the application dated 19.03.2011 and the said fact was mentioned in the allotment letter and Clause 4(a) of the Buyer Agreement. The Opposite Parties for making the down payment of the entire sale consideration of the flat, gave a discount of Rs. 2,72,800/- to the complainant. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties never intimated the status of construction work. It was further stated that when the complainant came to India in December, 2013 and visited the site, no construction work had commenced at the site. The complainant enquired regarding the delay in construction work from the Opposite Parties but they pacified him with false assurances of commencing and completing the construction work as early as possible. It was further stated that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant was to be held in November, 2015 and it was her wish that all the marriage functions should be performed from the house of the complainant in India but the Opposite Parties failed to complete the construction work. The complainant made a request to the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure C-4) to allot him an alternate flat, so that he could fulfill his daughter's dream but they failed to respond to the aforesaid letter. It was further stated that when the complainant again visited the site recently, he found only a basic structure of the concerned building was standing and even the plastering work was incomplete, without any proper approach road to the said flat and without any park and amenities in the surrounding area. It was further stated that copy of certificate dated 24.02.2016 issued by the registered Architect (Annexure C-5) clearly stated that only a basic structure is standing without any plastering work or electrical or plumbing work being complete. The Opposite Parties have abandoned the construction work of the said flat and there is a wild growth of jungle around the block, in which, the flat of the complainant exists. It was further stated that despite receipt of the entire payment, the Opposite Parties failed to commence the construction work. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure C-6) to the Opposite Parties but to no avail. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to pay any delay charges, which is mentioned in Clause 9 of the Agreement. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, they were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act" only), was filed.

  2. Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4, in their joint written statement, have stated that the documents annexed by the complainant as Annexures C-1 to C-4 are forged and fabricated and, therefore, the same could not be read and appreciated in the eyes of law. It was denied regarding the purchase of flat No. 1701 by the complainant, after making payment of Rs. 32,54,000/- in cash in one go. It was stated that the unit was never sold to the complainant and the documents produced by him are totally forged and fabricated. The replying Opposite Parties denied the receipt of the payment of Rs. 32,54,000/- from the complainant in respect of the unit, in question. It was further stated that the alleged unit No. 1701 is still with the replying Opposite Parties as unsold unit. An FIR was also registered against Mr. Sanjay Jain (Opposite Party No. 5) and Mr. Amit Jain & others for their illegal conspiracy regarding the fraud committed by them with the replying Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant is trying to take the illegal and undue benefit by misleading and giving wrong statement before this Commission, for which, he is not at all legally entitled to any relief, as prayed for, in this complaint on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents (Annexures C-1 to C-4) and for which, the replying Opposite Parties have filed a criminal complaint against the complainant (Annexure R-6). It was further stated that the complainant is part and parcel of this alleged connivance with Opposite Party No. 5 Mr. Sanjay Jain alongwith Mr. Amit Jain and others, so that the replying Opposite Parties be put to loss in terms of financial aspect. It was further stated that Opposite Party No. 5 was an employee of the replying Opposite Parties, he knew about all the units/flats/villas which was unsold in their project and in order to cause loss to the replying Opposite Parties, Opposite Party No. 5 sold these vacant stocks of units by making forged, fabricated, undated documents sometimes antedated documents and the perfect example of which is the documents annexed by the complainant (Annexures C-1 to C-4). It was further stated that the complainant is an Non Resident Indian and it is to be seen how he made a payment of Rs. 32,54,000/- in cash at one go, whether he has declared this income before the Income Tax Authorities and other authorities like State Government, RBI etc. It was further stated that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands as Mr. Sanjay Jain & Mr. Amit Jain was not authorized to issue those documents, on which, the complainant is relied upon. It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute, the property is in Mohali (Punjab) and, therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. It was further stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as the date of possession is allegedly to be 20.03.2013 and, therefore...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT