Consumer Complaint Nos. 204 and 203 of 2016. Case: Rohit Wadhawan and Ors Vs Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Consumer Complaint Nos. 204 and 203 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vertika H. Singh, Advocate and For Respondents: Parminder Singh, Advocate |
| Judges | Jasbir Singh, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 11, 14(1)(d), 17, 2(1)(d) |
| Judgement Date | January 10, 2017 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Padma Pandey, Member, (Chandigarh)
-
Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of two complaints bearing No. 204 of 2016 and 203 of 2016, referred to above. The facts involved in the two complaints and by and large, are the same and, therefore, these two complaints can be disposed of by passing a consolidated order.
-
To dictate order, facts are being taken from Consumer Complaint No. 204 of 2016 titled as 'Rohit Wadhawan & Anr. v. M/s. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt. Ltd.'
-
In brief, the facts of the case are that the Opposite Parties had launched the project of "TDI City" and the complainants were 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 complainants had applied for a Villa in their project vide application dated 03.06.2013 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, villa No. 99 having an approximately area of 1700 sq. ft. was allotted to the complainants vide allotment letter dated 03.06.2013. Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties on 25.06.2013 (Annexure C-2). According to Clause 9 of the Agreement, possession of the villa was to be delivered within a period of 24 months from the date of the Agreement i.e. latest by 25.06.2015. It was further stated that the aggregate sale price of the villa, as per the Agreement, was Rs. 44,50,400/- including EDC. The complainants had opted for Construction Linked Payment Plan. It was further stated that the complainants had made the initial payment of Rs. 12,50,000/- out of the total sale consideration before the execution of the Agreement. It was further stated that after receipt of the payment, the Opposite Parties never communicated to the complainants regarding the stage of construction work. The complainants enquired from the Opposite Parties telephonically on several occasions regarding the status of construction work of the said villa but they evaded the queries. It was further stated that when the complainants visited the site recently, they found only a basic structure of the concerned building was standing and no other work had been done in the said villa. The complainants had visited the site to enquire regarding the status of the construction work in order to make payment of the further installments but they were utterly disappointed by seeing that the construction work of the said villa had been completely shunned by the Opposite Parties without any rhyme and reason. It was further stated that there was no approach to the said villa, no park and amenities in the surrounding area. Photographs of the concerned villa is Annexure C-3. It was further stated that the photographs clearly depicted that only a basic structure is standing without any plastering work of electrical or plumbing work being complete. The Opposite Parties have abandoned the construction work of the said villa and there is a wild growth of jungle around the block, in which, the villa of the complainants exists. It was further stated that despite receipt of the huge payment, the Opposite Parties failed to show their bona fide and did not commence the construction work. Ultimately, the complainants sent a legal notice dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure C-4) 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. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties did not have the required sanctions/permissions for the development of the site and even they did not apply for the completion certificate of the said project. 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 complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "Act" only), was filed.
-
Opposite Parties No. 1 to 4, in their joint written statement, have stated that the complaint is not maintainable, as the replying Opposite Parties filed a criminal complaint against the complainants (Annexure R-7), which is pending before the SSP office, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the criminal complaint has been filed on the ground that there is a big difference in the basic sale price of the villa, in question, because the basic sale price, as per the price list (Annexure R-8) is Rs. 65 lacs and not Rs. 41 lacs, as allegedly shown by the complainants in Annexures C-1 & C-2 (allotment letter and Buyer Agreement) and further as per Annexure R-9 the interim audit report of the replying Opposite Parties clearly shows the name and amount difference of the BSP qua the complainants and the villa, in question. It was further stated that the criminal conspiracy committed by the complainants with the active connivance of Opposite Party No. 5 and one Mr. Amit Jain, who has not been impleaded as a party in this case, which shows that in order to make loss to the Company, the complainants allegedly purchased the villa, in question, at Rs. 41 lacs, whereas, the actual BSP was Rs. 65 lacs. It was further stated that under what circumstances, Opposite Party No. 5 had signed the allotment letter and one Mr. Amit Jain, who was not authorized to sign any documents of the Company has entered into Agreement and signed on behalf of the Company and that too on a lesser BSP by Rs. 24 lacs. It was further stated that the documents annexed by the complainants i.e. Annexures C-1 and C-2 are forged and fabricated documents and could not be appreciated in the eyes of law, especially when FIR was registered against Mr. Sanjay Jain (Opposite Party No. 5) and Mr. Amit Jain & others for their illegal conspiracy, and the fraud committed by them with the Company. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties received the total amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- only, which is not even 1/5th of the BSP, and the last payment was made way back on 21.06.2013. The complainants intentionally blocked the villa by just giving a booking amount and, thereafter, did not follow the payment schedule, which is admittedly the construction linked plan and in that plan, the timely payment is the essence and, therefore, still the balance amount of Rs. 1,05,19,882/- is pending against the complainants, which has been shown in the summary calculation (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint, as Clause 36 of the Agreement clearly states that Courts at Delhi alone have the jurisdiction for adjudication of all the matters arising out in connection with the Agreement and even the concerned Chandigarh office is lying closed for the last so many years. It was further stated that 75% of the persons are fully satisfied and have paid their dues and have already been given the possession, whereas, only some of these persons are adamant of not making the payment. It was further stated that the complainants have purchased the property not for residential purpose as they are living in Delhi and no evidence has been attached with this complaint, which suggest that the complainants alongwith his family want to live in this villa at any point of time, and, therefore the villa purchased by the complainants is only for speculation purposes and, as such, they cannot be termed as a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was further stated that the complaint is also not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as the Buyer's Agreement was signed by Mr. Amit Jain, for which, he is a necessary party to be impleaded. It was further stated that the villa, in question, was already cancelled vide cancellation notice dated 11.10.2014 (Annexure R-11). It was further stated that the complainants in order to have the possession of the villa have to make that payment and possession of the villa could be handed over in another 30 days time from that day, as 95% work of the villa is complete since October, 2014 and only fixtures and painting work is pending. It was further stated that final notice for possession, as per the Agreement, is always issued in the end when the complete payment as per the agreed plan is made without any delay whatsoever and the intermediate letters are just to inform about the status. It was further stated that the complainants made the last payment on 21.06.2013 and, thereafter, no payment was made and, therefore, the question of handing over of possession without taking the complete payment is out of question. It was admitted regarding purchase of the villa, in question and denied the issuance of Annexures C-1 and C-2. It was admitted that as per Clause 9 of the Agreement, possession of the villa was to be given within 24 months i.e. 20.05.2015 but is subject to other terms and conditions such as timely payment, as per the payment plan opted by the complainants. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were not duty bound to inform the complainants regarding the progress of construction work because duty is casted upon the complainants to come present at the site, check the construction work and make the payment, which the complainants failed to do so. It was denied that the complainants visited the site to know the status of construction and also denied regarding receipt of any legal notice. It was further stated that there is not a single evidence on record which suggests that no proper approach road to the villa and no park and amenities are there because photographs (Annexure R-10) clearly shows the development of the area. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the replying Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.
-
Opposite Party No. 5 in his short reply, admitted that the complainants deposited an amount of Rs. 12,50,00/-...
To continue reading
Request your trial