Consumer Complaint No. 205 of 2014. Case: Geeta Dutt and Ors. Vs Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberConsumer Complaint No. 205 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Gill, Advocate and For Respondents: Anuj Kohli, Advocate
JudgesJ.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J)) and J.S. Gill, Member
IssueArbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17(1)(a), 3, 5; Punjab Apartment And Property Regulation Act, 1995 - Sections 12, 14; Securities And Exchange Board Of India Act, 1992 - Sections 11(4), 24
Judgement DateJanuary 04, 2017
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


J.S. Klar, (Presiding Member (J))

  1. The complainants have filed this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against the OPs on the averments that they purchased plot No. 529 measuring 200 sq. yds. in Pearls City Sector 100 Mohali township of OPs in resale from Gulshan Rai, who bought the same from original allottee i.e. Manjit Singh for Rs. 46,00,000/- and also paid Rs. 35,000/- plus Rs. 4326/- (towards service tax on club membership). The above said plot was transferred in their name on 31.05.2014 after paying the transfer fee of Rs. 40,000/- plus service tax of Rs. 4944/-. It was averred that plot buyers agreement was also endorsed in the name of the complainants after the said transfer. The complainants made an excess payment of Rs. 20815/- to OP No. 1, which OPs instead of refunding the same, promised to adjust in the maintenance charges, when they would take the possession. It was further averred that as per the plot buyers agreement, the OPs were to deliver the possession of plot within three years from the date of signing of plot buyers agreement from 03.08.2011. The complainants bought the above said plot for living there, but possession was not given to them in time. No offer of possession has been made to complainants. It was further averred that they sent e-mail to OP No. 1 on 05.07.2014 in this regard, but to no use. The complainants again raised the same issue with OP No. 1 on 12.09.2014, but possession has not been offered till date. The complainants checked up the development in the OP's township in Sector 104 Mohali and found that the promised facilities were not up to mark there. It was further averred that the complainants again sent email to OPs on 29.10.2014 to the effect that no development has taken place in the township and also sent the latest photograph of the same. It was further averred that OP No. 1, while doing the marketing of the projects never disclosed the facts that land belongs to OP No. 3, which was in the business of collecting money from the investors through unauthorized way. The same has been held by SEBI in the recent order dated 22.08.2014 passed against OP No. 3. In the said order, OP No. 3 has been ordered by SEBI to return the money of investors within three months from the date of order. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainants have, thus, filed the complaint directing OPs to refund the total amount of Rs. 47,05,085/-, besides Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

  2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. It was alleged that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of the OPs. The complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was averred that address of the complainants is # 1142-D, Dashmesh Nagar Tehsil Kharar District Mohali. It was denied that complainants are residents of H. No. 172-A Sector 51-A Chandigarh or they have been living on rent at the aforesaid address. It was averred that rent agreement was a fabricated document created by complainants in connivance with the alleged owner of the alleged demised premises. The complainants have booked the above said plot in question with the sole intention of investment. It was denied that complainants made any excess payment much less an amount of Rs. 20,815/- to OP No. 1. There was no occasion for OPs to make any promise to complainants to adjust any alleged excess payment in maintenance charges. It was averred that an amount of Rs. 1,77,529/- was outstanding against the complainants payable at the time of taking the possession of the plot. This fact was denied that offer of possession has never been made to complainant or the site of the township has not been developed. It was further by OPs denied that complainant checked up the development in the OPs township and found that promised facilities were not up to the mark. It was further denied that OP No. 3 was collecting money from investors through unauthorized way. It was further averred that complainants endorsed the buyer's agreement on 31.05.2014, which clearly mentioned the title of the land lies with OP No. 3. Rest of the averments have been denied by OPs and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

  3. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-A, affidavit of Mohan Dutt husband of the complainant along with copies of documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-11. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Harvinder Singh working as officer Marketing for OPs Ex. OP-A along with copies of documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex. OP-10 and closed the...

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