Complaint Case No. 442 of 2016. Case: Vivek Malhotra and Ors. Vs Emaar MGF Land Ltd. and Ors.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Complaint Case No. 442 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Savinder Singh Gill, Advocate and For Respondents: Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | Jasbir Singh, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8; Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17; Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 29, 33, 63 |
| Judgement Date | March 24, 2017 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Padma Pandey, Member, (Chandigarh)
-
The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were willing to own a residential plot for their family and personal use, with an intention for staying rooted to their motherland and accordingly, bought plot No. 87, measuring 400 sq. yds. in Pinewood Greens in Sector 108, SAS Nagar, Mohali in resale from the original allottee Sh. Amit Malhotra and the same was transferred in their name on 21.01.2010. Plot Buyer's Agreement was executed between the parties on 07.07.2007 (Annexure C-2). According to Clause 8 of the Agreement, possession of the said plot was to be delivered within a period of 2 years from the date of execution of Agreement but not later than 3 years i.e. latest by 07.07.2010. It was stated that the complainants already made the payment of Rs. 59,94,400/- towards the consideration of the said plot. It was further stated that the Punjab Government slashed the EDC from Rs. 1811/- per sq. yd. to Rs. 807/- per sq. yd. but the Opposite Parties took the EDC as per the old rates and holding the same for almost six years and even after lot of correspondence, the said amount has not been refunded to them (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.05.2014 offered possession to the complainants (Annexure C-4) but it was only a paper possession and that too after almost 4 years of delay as per the Agreement. It was further stated that the complainants being NRI were never given the status of the exact ground realities existing at the project and were always given a rosy picture. It was further stated that regarding the main entrance of Sector 109, there is a matter pending before the Civil Court, Kharar under Sections 29, 33 and 63 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Opposite Parties have violated the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996. Moreover, the deadline given by PUDA to complete the said project in all aspects already over by 30.06.2015. Copies of the RTI are Annexures C-5 & C-6. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence 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 the 'Act' only), was filed.
-
The Opposite Parties, in their written version, have taken objection regarding arbitration clause in the Agreement, and also they separately moved an application u/s. 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 taking a specific objection in this regard for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of the agreed terms and conditions of the Agreement. It was stated that the complaint is not maintainable at Chandigarh because the Agreement was signed/executed at Delhi and payments were made at Mohali. It was further stated that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement, in case of any delay in handing over of possession beyond the expected period set out, the Company should be liable to pay to the allottee penalty, as per the terms of the Agreement, however, as the possession was duly offered in November, 2009 i.e. within agreed timeline, so no...
To continue reading
Request your trial