State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darshan Singh Gill vs M/S Manohar Infrastructure And … on 18 July, 2019 Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH   Consumer Complaint : 76 of 2018 Date of Institution : 20.02.2019 Date of Decision : 18.07.2019   1.   Darshan Singh Gill son of S. Bajinder Singh;
2.   Jaspal Kaur Gill wife of Darshan Singh Gill;
Residents of House No.15, Forman Avenue, Glenwood, NSW-2768, Australia, through their Special Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Jagdish Singh son of Sh. Ram Chand resident of House No.1811, Sector-80, Mohali, Punjab.
                                                             ………Complainants.
Versus   1.   M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.
2.   Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3.   Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Consumer Complaint :
77 of 2018 Date of Institution :
19.02.2018 Date of Decision :
18.07.2019   Sumer Chand @ Samer Singh son of Shri Lichhman, resident of Village Nimbri, Tehsil and District Panipat, at present resident of House No.2226, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh – 160019.
                                                           ………Complainant.
Versus   1.   M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.
2.   Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3.   Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Consumer Complaint :
221 of 2018 Date of Institution :
15.05.2018 Date of Decision :
18.07.2019   Puneet Aggarwal s/o Shri Rattan Chand Aggarwal resident of H.No.14, Street No.3, Ferozpur Cantt., Punjab.
                                                           ………Complainant.
Versus   1.   M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.
2.   Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3.   Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Consumer Complaint :
235 of 2018 Date of Institution :
23.05.2018 Date of Decision :
18.07.2019   1.   Pradeep Sharma s/o Late Sh. T. D. Sharma, resident of H.No.3115, Sector-44D, Chandigarh.
2.   Manjula Sharma W/o Pradeep Sharma, resident of H.No.3115, Sector-44D, Chandigarh.
                                                             ………Complainants.
Versus 1.   Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Regional Office:- SCO No.143-144, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.
2.   Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regional Office:- SCO No.143-144, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.
  ……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Mukesh Pandit, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. I. P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Consumer Complaint :
471 of 2018 Date of Institution :
18.12.2018 Date of Decision :
18.07.2019   Surinder Kumar Sharma son of Hukam Chand resident of House No.1208, Sector-42B, Chandigarh.
                                                           ………Complainant.
Versus   1.   M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.
2.   Tarninder Singh, Managing Director/Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
3.   Narinderbir Singh, Director, M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at SCO No.139-141, Sector – 17C, First Floor, Chandigarh.
……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Consumer Complaint :
14 of 2019 Date of Institution :
18.01.2019 Date of Decision :
18.07.2019   1.   Latika Kalia W/o Sh. Bir Chand Kalia R/o H.No.3118, Sector-44D, Chandigarh.
2.   Sh. Bir Chand Kalia S/o Sh. Roshan Lal R/o H.No.3118, Sector-44D, Chandigarh.
                                                           ………Complainants.
Versus 1.   Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through its Regional Manager, Regional Office:- SCO No.143-144, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.
2.   Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regional Office:- SCO No.143-144, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160008.
……….Opposite Parties.
Argued by:
  Sh. Mukesh Pandit, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh. I. P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
    Complaints under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
                MR.  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER   PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER                  By this order, we propose to dispose of aforesaid six consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the above cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same.  
2.                     At the time of arguments, on 23.04.2019, it was agreed by Counsel for the contesting parties, that facts involved in the above complaints, by and large, are the same, and therefore, these complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.
3.                     To dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.76 of 2018 titled as Darshan Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited & Ors.  
4.                     The facts, in brief, are that the complainants are residing in Australia for the past 20 years. As they visit India 1-2 times in a year, therefore, they were in need of a residential accommodation in a plotted colony near Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainants required such residential accommodation so that their children and grand children can visit India anytime and stay there. In April, 2012, when the complainants were in India, they booked a residential plot in the aforesaid project of the opposite parties on 20.04.2012 vide application (Annexure C-1). They paid Rs.13,83,601/- as the booking amount i.e. about 30% of the total sale consideration of the said plot. At the time of booking, it was assured by the opposite parties that they had already received all the approvals and sanctions except one or two and the said remaining permission would be obtained within 20 months. It was also assured to the complainants that the allotment letter would be issued shortly and the buyer’s agreement would also be executed within 4-5 months. The opposite parties never disclosed the true progress of the project and it was on 01.01.2014 that the opposite parties informed the complainants that LOI has been issued and an agreement with Government has also been entered. Further vide letter dated 19.02.2014, it was informed that the project has reached the final stage and a demand of Rs.9,25,000/- was raised from the complainants. The complainants were hopeful that possession would be delivered within time i.e. by April 2014, as promised by the opposite parties.
5.                     Thereafter, in the month of August, 2014, it was informed that CLU has been received and plot shall be allotted by December 2014 but to no avail. The opposite parties kept on lingering the execution of agreement and issuance of allotment letter by giving false assurances. By 24.12.2014, the complainant paid 50% of the sale consideration i.e. an amount of Rs.23,08,601/- to the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties issued another application acknowledgment dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure C-10) to the complainants whereby they arbitrarily incorporated the condition of paying IDC in the said acknowledgement.
6.                     It was further stated that neither allotment letter was issued after paying the amount of Rs.9,25,000/- nor buyer’s agreement was executed as promised. On demand being raised, the complainants further paid an amount of Rs.19,06,250/- to the opposite parties on 18.01.2016 and complainant No.1 selected a plot No.247 from the layout plan provided by the opposite parties. The said plot was rectangular in shape. A preference request dated 18.01.2016 on a standard format was got signed from the complainant. It was assured that buyer’s agreement would be executed in February 2016 but to no avail. Instead, complainants received another letter dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure C-14) from the opposite parties vide which more money was demanded from the complainants for execution of buyer’s agreement, which was in clear violation of PAPRA.                
7.                     Further vide letter dated 02.01.2017 (Annexure C-15), the opposite parties assured that buyer’s agreement would be executed within 30 days but position remained the same as nothing was done. Thereafter on 16.02.2017, complainant No.1 vide email (Annexure C-17) expressed his grievance regarding blank contract and irregular shape of plot No.247 and also expressed his disappointment to Opposite Parties regarding his calls not being answered. Accordingly, the complainants were offered plot bearing No.287 which was rectangular in shape as per the layout plan shown by the opposite parties.  On 22.02.2017, it was assured by the opposite parties that possession of the said plot would be delivered within one year and the complainants would also be duly compensated for the delay in delivery of possession. Again, preference request dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure C-18) was got signed from the complainants.
8.                     It was further stated that there was no development in the area where Plot bearing Nos.247 and 287 were situated and only open fields were there. Again on 27.12.2017, when enquired by complainant No.1 about the buyer’s agreement and possession of the plot, it was assured by the opposite parties that buyer’s agreement would be executed in the first week of January 2018 and possession would be delivered in the month of February 2018 but to no avail. Complainant No.1 visited the office of the opposite parties on 08.01.2018 for execution of buyer’s agreement but again they started demanding balance sale consideration. The complainants refused to pay the amount and conveyed to the opposite parties that they would pay the balance sale consideration on the date of delivery of possession and subject to offer the buyer’s agreement for execution. Complainant No.1 again approached the office of the opposite parties on 25.01.2018 for execution of buyer’s agreement but they refused to offer the same without paying the balance sale consideration. At that time, it was not disclosed by the opposite parties that they had also sent letter dated 17.01.2018 to the complainants at Australia for execution of the agreement. It was further stated that when asked for compensation for causing 4 years of delay, the opposite parties refused to pay the same. It was further stated that the other charges amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- for club charges were not payable by the complainants. It was further stated that the complainants are also not liable to pay IDC as it was forcibly imposed by the opposite parties. It was further stated that in application dated 20.04.2012, payment plan, acknowledgment dated 15.06.2012 & in the letter dated 18.01.2016, there was no mention about the said extra/additional/hidden charges.
9.                     In nutshell, it was stated that when the plot was sold to the complainants, the opposite parties had not even applied for necessary permissions. It was further stated that the complainants have already paid an amount of Rs.42,14,851/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.51,25,000/- and the opposite parties have not been able to deliver possession of the pot by April 2014. There was misrepresentation at the time of booking of the plot in question. 
10.                 Terming above as deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the complainants have filed this complaint, seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over actual physical possession of Plot No.287 in their housing project, namely, ‘Palm Garden’; immediately execute buyer’s agreement in respect of aforesaid plot without demanding any further amount; not to charge IDC, other charges/extra charges/ hidden charges as were charged in statement dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure C-18); pay compensation for delay caused in handing over the possession @15% p.a. on the deposited amount w.e.f. April 2014 till the date of delivery of actual physical possession of the plot in question; not to create third party rights or any charge over the said plot No.287; pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for physical, mental torture, agony, discomfort and undue hardships caused to the complainants and also pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- towards cost of litigation.
11.                 In the reply filed by the opposite parties, they took numerous objections like, expression of interest shown by the complainant was for speculative purposes. It was stated that the complainants are NRI and living in Australia for the last more than 20 years and settled there. The plot, in question, was purchased by them only for speculative purpose.
12.                 As such, the complainants being investors, would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act, 1986). Various other objections were taken by the opposite parties such as complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, as such, the same cannot be entertained by this Commission, proceedings before which are summary in nature and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint; this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction; since the project of the opposite parties has been registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short, the RERA) as such, jurisdiction of this Commission is barred etc. 13.                 Further, the complaint has been filed through Sh. Jagdish Singh, alleged Special Power of Attorney holder of the complainants and perusal of SPA reveals that the same was attested by Consulate General of India at Sydney on 03.02.2018 whereas the same is dated 07.02.2018. Apart from this, it was stated that SPA has not been embossed by any authority as per Rules applicable in this regard.
14.                 It was further stated that the complaint is supported by an affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Singh, SPA, which is also not admissible in evidence on behalf of the complainants in support of the complaint. It was stated that attorney cannot depose pertaining to the facts which are in the personal knowledge of the party who has executed the attorney in his/her favour.  
15.                 Further, it was stated that the complaint is time barred so far as issue qua IDC has been raised after a period of three years from the date of acceptance of terms and conditions in this regard and as such, no direction in this regard can be issued by this Commission.
16.                 On merits, it was stated that the plot, in question, was sold to the complainants, in a project of the opposite parties known as “Palm Garden” aforesaid. It was stated that the project was approved on 22.03.2013. Formal agreement was signed with the Government on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, some more land was added to the project, for which completion period was given upto 13.06.2018, vide supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016. It was stated that exemption from the applicability of provisions of the PAPRA already stood granted by the Government concerned, in favour of the opposite parties on 25.01.2017. In view of above, act of the opposite parties in getting money deposited against expression of interest, from the purchasers stood rectified. The exemption granted will relate back to the date, when application was moved for sanction, to launch the project. It was averred that once the State Government has not held that the opposite parties had violated the provisions of PAPRA, as such, this Commission cannot go into the said question. It was stated that as per Section 35 of the PAPRA, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred to entertain and decide any question relating to matters arising under it (PAPRA). The complainants have waived of their rights to raise any objection regarding permissions/approvals aforesaid, by making payment towards price of the said plot. It was averred that, as on today, the opposite parties are in possession of all the requisite permissions/clearances, in respect of the said project.  At the time of arguments also, it was contended with vehemence, by Counsel for the opposite parties that irregularities, if any, in accepting the expression of interest to purchase the land in the absence of necessary permissions/sanctions; non-execution of Buyer’s Agreement, as per Section 6 of the PAPRA etc. have no adverse effect on the project of the opposite party. It was also stated that huge amount has been invested by the opposite parties for getting necessary clearances and in developing the site in dispute. The opposite parties are trying to complete the project, as early as possible, as the development work is going on, in full swing and provision of basic amenities such as roads, electricity etc. are near completion. However, in the same breath, it was pleaded that, as per Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2016, the Govt. concerned has given completion period of the project upto 13.06.2018 (which period already stood expired). As such, time was not the essence of contract. The project was delayed, also on account of red-tapism in the offices of the Govt. Department concerned and also business/political rivalry. The Competent Authorities delayed in granting approvals/sanctions, as far as the present project is concerned. It was stated that delay in delivery of possession of plots occurred also on account of shortage of building material and ban on mining by the Govt., which could be termed as force majeure circumstances. Furthermore, there was no sale of goods to the complainants.
17.                 It was further stated that the additional charges in the shape of EDC, IDC, Government Cess were in addition to the basic sale price, which are to be paid by each customer and it was only a case of expression of interest which was acknowledged vide Annexure C-2. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions, the Development Charges included EDC & IDC. It was further stated that charging of IDC & PLC is fully mentioned in the acknowledgement (Annexure C-10) and the complainants are bound by the same.
18.                 It was further stated that letter was submitted by the complainants and their request was accepted by allotment of Plot No.247, which was to be followed by execution of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement, however, the complainants did not come forward despite notices issued from time to time. It was further stated that the complainants failed to come forward to execute the Agreement since they were not interested in the plot and later on, also changed the plot which was allotted to them. It was further stated that development activities were in full progress and the project is near completion at this stage. It was further stated that the complainants being defaulters cannot claim any amount of compensation for the delay in the allotment of the plot and delivery of possession.
19.                 Saying that neither there is any deficiency in rendering service nor adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties, it was prayed that this complaint having no substance deserves dismissal with cost.
20.                 The complainants filed separate rejoinder wherein they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the opposite parties.
21.                 We have heard the contesting parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
22.                 Before dealing with these cases, we would like to dispose of following Miscellaneous Applications filed by the opposite parties seeking summoning & cross-examination of complainants/their witnesses and further to produce oral as well as documentary evidence on record after such cross-examination:-
Sr. No. Miscellaneous Application No. Complaint Case No. 1. 339/2019 76/2018 2. 340/2019 77/2018 3. 341/2019 221/2018 4. 342/2019 471/2018   23.               To dictate order in disposing of above miscellaneous applications, the file of Miscellaneous application bearing No.339 of 2019 filed in Complaint Case No.76 of 2018 is being taken up.
24.                 It may be stated here that the prayer made at this stage, when the consumer complaint is at the final stage of arguments, is totally absurd and cannot be acceded to. Notice in complaint case bearing No.76 of 2018 filed by the non-applicants/complainants was issued by this Commission on 22.02.2018 and the case was adjourned to 22.03.2018 for filing reply and evidence/evidence by the applicants/opposite parties. On the said date i.e. 22.03.2018, again time was sought by the applicants/opposite parties to file reply and evidence/affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 26.04.2018 for the said purpose, on which date, again time was sought to file reply and evidence/affidavit. The matter was adjourned to 17.05.2018, on which date, again reply and evidence/affidavit was not filed and the applicants/opposite parties sought an adjournment to file the same, which was granted subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs to be paid/deposited half and half. The matter was adjourned to 14.06.2018, on which date, the applicants/opposite parties filed their reply and evidence and the matter was adjourned to 19.07.2018 for arguments, on which date, the non-applicants/complainants also filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicants/opposite parties. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 30.08.2018, 13.09.2018, 27.09.2018, 04.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 29.10.2018, 15.11.2018, 29.11.2018, 10.01.2019, 31.01.2019, 07.02.2019, 21.02.2019, 15.03.2019, 28.03.2019, 11.04.2019, 25.04.2019, 16.05.2019, 17.05.2019 and then to 21.05.2019 for arguments.
25.                 It was only on 20.05.2019, this application was filed by the applicants/opposite parties seeking the aforesaid relief.
26.                 It may also be stated here that when the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit alongwith his complaint, the opposite parties could cross examine him by serving questionnaires by way of affidavit(s), which was not done. They filed their written statement alongwith the affidavit/evidence. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply filed. The matter was adjourned on numerous dates as stated above. Now at this stage of final hearing of the complaint case, the applicants/opposite parties by moving this application tried to defeat the very purpose of provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act was enacted to provide better protection for the consumers and their interests. By this Act, the legislature sought to constitute quasi judicial Tribunals/Commissions as an alternative system of adjudicating consumer disputes via summary proceedings. That is the whole purpose of providing for a separate three tiered system comprised of a District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission which would provide inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers.
27.                 In the case of Con Décor Vs. Smritikana Ghose & Anr., 2002 (3) CLT 516, a three Member Bench of  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi placing reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgment rendered in State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, (1996) Supp. SCR 401 held in Para 14 as under:-
“14.   We would, therefore, hold that cross-examination of a witness or a party before a forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not a rule. It is only an exception. When reputation of a person, like a medical practioner in the case of alleged medical negligence is involved, he will have a right to cross-examine any person alleging professional negligence against him. When it is merely a question as to veracity of the statement of the witness, cross-examination cannot be permitted. In that case to contradict a party can certainly file his own affidavit or of any other witness. If cross-examination of a person is to be permitted in every case under the Consumer Protection Act, the whole object of this Act would be lost and there would hardly be any difference in proceedings before a Forum under the Act and a Civil Court. Many disputes involving high stakes and huge values are decided in writ jurisdiction by the High Courts and Supreme Court merely on the basis of affidavits. It, therefore does not appeal to reason that when Consumer Protection Act permits evidence to be led by means of affidavits right of cross-examination must be resorted to in every case. A forum under Consumer Protection Act must exercise extreme caution in permitting cross-examination. We, therefore, do not find any merit in any of the questions raised by the petitioner.”
  28.               Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and examining the matter in hand in that perspective, we find that the averments made by the complainant in his affidavit could be rebutted by the applicants/opposite parties by filing rebuttal affidavits alongwith the relevant documents in their power and possession.
29.                 The aforesaid applications filed after numerous dates and adjournments and when the complaint cases are at final stage of arguments, are a sheer attempt to defeat the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and are not maintainable at this stage. Such an attempt by the applicants/opposite parties cannot be allowed at this stage of final arguments.
30.                 Once the applications are held to be not maintainable when the cases are finally being disposed of and that too after affording numerous dates & adjournments in these cases, the judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the opposite parties, at this stage, in the cases of M/s Regency Aqua-Electro And Motelresorts Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., First Appeal No.1003 of 2014 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 03.03.2016; Dr. J. J. Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (2002) 6 SCC 635; Shiv Kumar Aggarwal and Anr. Vs. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. and Anr., First Appeal No.11 of 1999 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 29.05.2006;  K. K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275: (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 665; Development Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Civil Appeal No.2667 of 2005 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 09.05.2005 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, First Appeal No.464 of 1994 decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 18.08.1998 are of no help.
31.                 Accordingly, all the aforesaid miscellaneous applications bearing Nos.339, 340, 341 & 342 of 2019, being not maintainable, are dismissed.
32.                 Now coming to the first objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that since the SPA filed is defective, and that since the complaint is supported by an affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Singh, SPA, which is also not admissible in evidence on behalf of the complainants in support of the complaint, as attorney cannot depose pertaining to the facts which are in the personal knowledge of the party who has executed the attorney in his/her favour, as such, the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only, it may be stated here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation, to provide speedy, inexpensive and hassle-free redressal to the grievance of the consumers. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, except the one, provided under Section 13(4) of the Act, and the Evidence Act are not applicable to the consumer disputes. Unnecessary technicalities deter an individual consumer from approaching the consumer fora, thereby frustrating the objective of the Act. The Consumer Foras are to evolve their own procedure, for adjudicating the consumer disputes, by resorting to the principles of natural justice, but are not required to enter into technicalities, with a view to deny the substantial justice to the parties. It was also so said by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another, Civil Appeal No.2641 of 2010, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15084/2009), decided on  March 8, 2010. Relevant contents of the said order read thus:-
“The Forum overruled the objection, and in our view rightly, that complaints before consumer are tried summarily and Evidence Act  in terms does not apply. This Court held in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 that provisions of Evidence Act  are not applicable and the Fora under the Act are to follow principles of natural justice”.
  Even, as per Notification No.24(6)/2014-CPU dated 27.05.2014, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, it was directed to all the Consumer Foras that the consumer(s) should not be forced to file affidavit, as required in Judicial Courts and only self-attested documents/affidavits should suffice, while filing complaint(s). This shows that even the Govt. of India has shown a liberal approach towards consumers, for their hassle-free redressal to the grievance. The opposite parties have miserably failed to convince this Commission, as to what prejudice has been caused to them, in the matter, on account of the said GPA. The judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the opposite parties in the case of Raj Kumar Vij Vs. Hem Raj Singla and others, C.R. No.6748 of 2001 decided by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on 25.07.2007 is of no help to the opposite parties. As such, objection taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, therefore being devoid of merit stands rejected.
33.                 Now coming to the objection taken by the opposite parties to the effect that since the complainants are NRIs and living in Australia for the last more than 20 years and settled there, as such, the plot, in question, was purchased by them only for speculative purpose, it may be stated here that there is nothing, on record to show that the complainants are property dealers and are indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. In their complaint, it has been specifically stated by the complainants that the unit, in question was purchased by them, for personal use. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by  opposite parties mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta,  2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case.
34.                 At the time of arguments, it was vehemently argued by Counsel for the opposite parties that since the complainants are residing at Australia for the last more than 20 years, and have no intention to shift to India, therefore, the plot, in question, was purchased for future gains, as such, they would not fall within the definition of consumer. It may be stated here that, no law debars NRIs and any other person staying abroad, with roots in India, to purchase a residential property in India, for his/her personal use. Under similar circumstances, the Hon`ble National Commission, in a case titled as Smt. Reshma Bhagat & Anr. Vs. M/ s Supertech Ltd. Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2012, decided on 04 .01. 2016 , held as under:-
“We are unable to clap any significance with these faint arguments.  It must  be borne in mind that after selling the property at Bangalore, and  in order  to save  the money from riggers  of capital gain tax, under  Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there lies no rub in getting the property, anywhere, in whole of India.  There is not even an iota of evidence that they are going to earn anything from the flat in dispute.  From the evidence, it is apparent that the same had been  purchased  for  the residence of  the complainants.  Moreover, Sh. Tarun S. Bhagat, who is an independent person. It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India.  NRIs do come to India, every now and then.  Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India.  He is an independent  person  and  can  purchase any  house in India,  in his own name.”
                      The complainants, thus, fall within the definition of a ‘consumer’, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Such an objection, taken by the opposite parties, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.  
35.                 It is not in dispute, that the complainants have booked the plot, in question, in the project of the opposite parties, against total sale consideration of Rs.51,25,000/- and by the time this complaint was filed, an amount of Rs.42,14,851/- already stood paid to them (opposite parties). It is also not disputed that till date, possession of the plot, in question, had not been offered and delivered to the complainants. At the time of arguments, when we asked Counsel for the opposite parties, as to at what stage, development of the project has reached and as to by which date, possession of the plot, in question, complete in all respects, alongwith completion certificate, will be offered and delivered to the complainants, he did not give any convincing reply. Even this much was not apprised, as to whether, the Company has applied for completion certificate or not. No exact period/date of possession has still been given, by which possession of the plot could be delivered. Burden to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed or is about to complete, is on the builder/opposite parties. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In case, all the development/construction activities, are being undertaken and near completion, then it was for the opposite parties, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities are being undertaken and about to complete in near future, but they failed to do so.  Mere placing on record some photographs, perusal of which too, reveal that still lot of development works need to be completed, are of no help to the opposite parties, especially in the face of its candid admission in para nos.24 and 25 of written reply that development work is at advance stage and likely to completed and that possession will be handed over shortly. It has not been apprised by the opposite parties, as to what were they doing for the last seven years. It appears that the opposite parties are not serious in developing the project. This is not the first case, but this Commission has decided number of cases against the opposite parties with similar facts, in respect of the same project “Palm Garden”, Mullanpur, Punjab, wherein, it has been proved that it has lost interest in developing the project, in a time bound manner. Under these circumstances, it is held that the opposite parties were deficient in rendering service and also adopted unfair trade practice, by raising demands, in the absence of development work at the project site. The complainants are, thus, held entitled to possession of the plot, in question.
36.                 As far as plea taken by the opposite parties with regard to payment of additional charges towards IDC by the complainants, is concerned, we do not agree with the same. It may be stated here that Counsel for the complainants has contended with vehemence that at the time of booking of the said plot, it was never agreed to, between the parties, that any such charges towards IDC is payable by the complainants except EDC, PLC if any. At the same time, we have also gone through the application form dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure C-1) and also application acknowledgement letter dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure     C-3) and found that only the charges with regard to basic sale price of Rs.46,25,000/-, PLC if any, EDC and Govt. levies were payable by the complainants. We did not find anything, which says that the complainants were also liable to pay IDC. It appears that duplicate copy of the application acknowledgment dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure C-10) was issued after a period of about three years, only with a view to dupe the complainants by inserting the additional charges towards IDC. Otherwise also, it has not been clarified by the opposite parties that once the application acknowledgment letter was issued in favour of the complainants on 15.06.2012, then what again, the need arose to issue the said acknowledgment letter again on 13.02.2015. It appears that it was only with a view to insert the illegal demand of IDC therein, so that they can usurp more amount from the complainants, which act itself amounts to unfair trade practice, and as such, the same has no significant value in the eyes of law. The said conduct of the opposite parties needs to be deprecated.
37.                 A similar question fell for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of JAIPURIA SUNRISE GREENS RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. AIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Consumer Case No.38 of 2007 decided on 30.08.2018, as to whether any charges which have been incorporated subsequently, in a new document, are payable or not. The Hon’ble National Commission, while answering the aforesaid question in negative, held, interalia, as under:-
“20.    As far as the cost of installation of fire-fighting and detection system is concerned, though the allotment letter duly signed by the complainants does provide for extra payment of the expenditure in obtaining clearance from the Fire Officer and provision of fire-fighting system equipment, as per the statutory requirements, the aforesaid clause is contrary to clause 8 of the terms & conditions of the allotment forming part of the application form wherein it was clearly stated that safety measures had been provided as per existing fire safety code/Regulations.  Even the price list on the basis of which bookings were made by the complainants did not stipulate any extra payment towards the cost of fire-fighting equipment.  In fact, no project of this nature can be approved without providing the prescribed fire-fighting equipment.  The case of the complainants is that the opposite party unilaterally imposed several new terms & conditions in the allotment letters issued after booking of flats by them and after receiving substantial payment from them.  Considering that neither the application form nor the price list provided for extra payment towards the cost of fire-fighting equipment, I hold that the complainants are not liable to pay to the opposite party for installation of fire-fighting and detection system.  The learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that the allotment letter being a contract between the parties and being a subsequent contract must govern the rights and obligations of the parties.  However, considering that the said terms & conditions was contrary to the terms & conditions contained in the application form and no extra charges for the fire-fighting and detection system was stipulated in the price list, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid term was unilaterally imposed by the opposite party and was accepted by the allottees, under coercion.  They having already made substantial payment, the complainants had no option but to sign on the dotted lines.  I, therefore, find no merit in the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the opposite party.
21.    As far as the external electrification charges are concerned, clause 9 (iv) of the allotment letter duly signed by the complainants does provide for payment of the cost of the said charges.  However, in the terms and conditions forming part of the application form submitted by the complainants, there was no term requiring payment of the said charges.  Even the price list also does not stipulate payment of external electrification cost as one of the extra charges though several extra charges were specifically mentioned in the said price list.  The contentions of the learned Counsel for opposite party is that (i) there is a specific contract in the form of allotment letter, for payment of the cost of external electrification charges; (ii) there is no contract/term for not charging the cost of external electrification and in the price list with effect from 12.10.2006, the opposite party had expressly included the external electrification charges in the basic sale price,  which is indicative that the said charges were not included in the basic sale price shown in the earlier price list.  I, however, find no merit in the said contention. The external electrification of a complex is an essential and integral part of the development of a project and no project can be developed without external electrification.  Therefore, ordinarily, the cost of external electrification would be in-built in the cost of the flat itself and would not be payable additionally unless, otherwise agreed by the allotted.  In the terms & conditions forming part of the application form, there was no provision for extra payment of the cost of external electrification.  Had the allottees to pay the cost of external electrification in addition to the basic price of the flat, it would have been expressly stated so either in the application form or in the price list on the basis of which the bookings were made.  This is more so when the price list did refer to several extra charges.  Though, the allotment letter does constitute a contract between the parties, as noted earlier, the complainants had no option but to execute the same as per the terms & conditions unilaterally decided by the opposite party, they having already made part payment to the opposite party and knowing fully well that in the event of their not signing the allotment letter as per the terms & conditions stipulated by the opposite party, atleast earnest money was likely to be forfeited by the opposite party, causing substantial financial loss to them.  I, therefore, hold that the cost of external electrification is not payable by the complainants as extra charge.”
38.                 As already stated above, in the present case also, neither any Plot Buyer’s Agreement was executed by the opposite parties, nor any allotment letter was issued nor reference of IDC was ever made by the opposite parties in expression of interest shown by the complainant vide dated application dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure C-1) and also application acknowledgement letter dated 15.06.2012 (Annexure C-3) issued by the opposite parties. Demand qua IDC was raised for the first time in application acknowledgement letter dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure C-10), which was issued after three years.
39.                 At the time of arguments, Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently contended that in the absence of payment of IDC charges, the Company will not be able to provide the amenities adjacent to the plot in question. In this regard, it may be stated here that the builder is bound to deliver a fully developed plot with all basic amenities required for smooth habitation and not an undeveloped or barren piece of land surrounded by grass and bushes. No prudent person will ever think of purchasing such a plot in the project lacking in basic amenities, which is only a piece of barren land. Once a person is spending his hard earned money towards purchase of a plot to build his own house, he will expect the same to be equipped with all basic amenities and facilities. Be that as it may, as stated above, in the present case, the complainant is not liable to pay IDC on account of the reasons mentioned in Para 36 above.
40.                 Further it may also be stated here that in the case of Abha Arora Vs. Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Consumer Complaint bearing No.170 of 2015 decided by this Commission on 01.04.2016, it was argued with vehemence by Senior Advocate for the opposite parties that there was a contract to sell piece of land only to the complainant and no service was to be provided to the complainant. It was then stated that the complainant would not fall within the definition of a consumer and thus complaint deserves to be dismissed. However, this Commission rejected the argument raised and in view of provisions of Clause 21.2 of the General Clauses of the Agreement in the said case, it was held in Para 34 of the said order as under:-
“34.   It is specifically stated that Company shall carry out internal development within the project, which included laying of roads, water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines etc., however, external development thereof, will be the responsibility of State Government. Above provision leaves no doubt that possession of fully developed plot over which construction can be raised, was a promise made by the opposite parties, to the complainant. Not only as above, IREO project is a part of Mega Housing Project. If it is so, it cannot be said that piece of land will be sold to a consumer, without making any development. The said Mega Housing Project is covered under the provisions of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act 1995.”
                     Further, the judgment rendered by this Commission in the case of Abha Arora (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal bearing No.531 of 2016 titled ‘ Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abha Arora’ decided on 11.10.2018 and the order passed by this Commission was modified qua the quantum of interest and compensation awarded only.
41.                 As far as objection taken to the effect that the complaint filed with regard to IDC is time barred, as it has been raised after a period of three years from the date of acceptance of terms and conditions in this regard and as such, no direction in this regard can be issued by this Commission, it may be stated here that it deserves rejections, on the ground that once it has been held above that the application acknowledgement so issued by the opposite parties was nothing but a tool to usurp more amount from the complainants, which act itself amounts to unfair trade practice and, the same has no significant value in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, the opposite parties cannot expect that the complainants should have moved number of consumer complaints, in respect of the plot, in question, by raising his grievances with regard to delay in execution of agreement; non completion of development work within the reasonable period delay in offering and delivering possession of the plot.  As such, objection taken in this regard, stands rejected.
42.                 It has been noticed that apart from above objections, in the present case, various other stereotype pleas/objections have been taken by the opposite party, which it has been taking in past, in almost all the consumer complaints filed in respect of the same project “Palm Garden”, Mullanpur, Punjab, already decided by this Commission such as limitation; time is not the essence of contract; project was delayed on account of force majeure circumstances like ban on mining; business rivalries etc.; exemption from the provisions of PAPRA after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017; jurisdiction of this Commission is barred in view of provisions of PAPRA and RERA; only civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide this case; complainant  was defaulter in making payment etc. It may be stated here that all these objections/pleas taken by the opposite party have been dealt with, by this Commission, in number of consumer complaints already decided and recently in Pankaj Goyal Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited and ors. consumer complaint no. 189 of 2018, decided on 19.12.2018, as under:-
“It is specifically brought to our notice, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the complainant that as per Guidelines to launch project in the mega housing project, (Palm Garden situated in mega housing project), it is not open to the project proponent like the opposite parties, to sell the project to general public without getting proper sanctions/approvals from the Competent Authorities. Earlier also, this Commission has relied upon these Guidelines, in various other cases, filed by allottees of the project, in dispute. Condition no.4 of the said Guidelines reads thus:-
“4 Conditions for grant of concessions:-
                     i.                ……….
                   ii.                The project shall not be advertised/launched and no money will be collected from general public for allotment of land/plot/flat/any space till such time the layout/zoning plans are cleared from the competent authority and exemption u/s 44 of PAPRA is issued by the Government.”
            It is mandated that the project can only be launched when layout/zoning plans are cleared from the Competent Authorities and exemption is granted from operation of the provisions of PAPRA, by the Government concerned. It was also so said in the ‘Letter of Intent’ for the Grant of Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009, issued on 03.05.2013, issued in favour of the opposite parties, by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, SAS Nagar, Mohali.             At the time of arguments, it has also come to our notice that when the project was advertised and sold in the year 2011, the opposite parties were not even registered with the GMADA, SAS Nagar, as a qualified project proponent, to obtain license under Section 5 of the PAPRA. Certificate of Registration was granted by the GMADA only on 27.06.2014, permitting the opposite parties to setup a colony subject to their obtaining requisite licenses, as mandated under the provisions of PAPRA.             In view of above, contention of Counsel for the complainant that the project, in question, was sold without any permission(s)/sanction(s) from the Competent Authorities and also violating the provisions of Sections 4 (1) (a) and (b) and 6 of the PAPRA appears to be correct. The said provisions reads thus:-
 “4. Issuing of advertisement or prospectus:-
(1) No promoter shall issue an advertisement or prospectus, offering for sale any apartment or plot, or inviting persons who intend to take such apartments or plots to make advances or deposits, unless,- (a) the promoter holds a certificate of registration under sub-section (2) of section 21 and it is in force and has not been suspended or revoked, and its number is mentioned in the advertisement or prospectus; and (b) a copy of the advertisement or prospectus is filed in the office of the competent authority before its issue or publication………………”.
“6.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a promoter who intends to construct or constructs a building of apartments, all or some of which are to be taken or are taken on ownership basis, or who intends to offer for sale plots in a colony, shall, before he accepts any sum of money as advance payment or deposit, which shall not be more than twenty five per cent of the sale price, enter into a written agreement for sale with each of such persons who are to take or have taken such apartments, or plots, as the case may be, and the agreement shall be in the prescribed for together with prescribed documents and shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act no. 16 of 1908);”
10.                A question, as to whether, necessary permission/sanctions had been obtained by the opposite parties before launching this project, came up for consideration before this Commission, in Veena Ghai and anr. Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Pvt. Limited and anr., consumer complaint no. 659 of 2017 decided on 28.06.2018. This Commission held as under:-
“The fact that the project was launched without obtaining necessary permissions/sanctions having been obtained from the Competent Authorities, is further fortified from a document of the opposite parties, placed on record as Annexure O-12 (at page 89 of the file), showing in a tabular format, as to by which dates, approvals, NOCs were granted to them, by the Competent Authorities. Relevant part of the said table is reproduced hereunder:-  
 Sr.No.
Approval Dated   Approval of project 25.04.2013   NOC from Forest Department 14.07.2014   Approval of layout plan 06.10.2015   Approval of zoning plan 24.11.2015   Permission for solid water, sewerage and storm water disposal 06.07.2015   Approval of detailed project/services plans of roads, water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, treated water supply and electrification 27.11.2015   Grant of  Consent to Establish (NOC) Water and Air 1.12.2015   NOC from Pollution Angle 15.02.2016   Environment Clearance 03.06.2016   NOC for electricity connection 15.03.2017   Extension of Grant of Consent (NOC) Water and Air 17.04.2017   Permission for Solid Waste Disposal and Storm Water Disposal 19.05.2017  Perusal of the aforextracted table clearly reveals that not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties, when the project, in question, was launched and sold to the customers, including the complainants, in March 2011. As such, the project, in question, was launched in complete derogation of the above said provisions.             Collecting money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permissions and sanctions is an unfair trade practice on the part of the project proponent. It is well settled law that it is duty of the builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers. It was also so said by the National Commission, in a case titled as M/s Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Vidya Raghupathi & Anr., First Appeal No. 1787 of 2016, decided on 31 May 2018. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“…………….This Commission in Brig. (Retd.) Kamal Sood Vs. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd., (2007) SCC Online NCDRC 28, has observed that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the Builder to collect money from the perspective buyers without obtaining the required permission and that it is duty of the Builder to first obtain the requisite permissions and sanctions and only thereafter collect the consideration money from the purchasers.
It is an admitted fact that the sale deeds were executed in the year 2006 and by 2009 the completion certificate was not issued. The Occupancy Certificate was issued only on 25.09.2017 during the pendency of these Appeals before this Commission. Allotting Plots or Apartments before procuring the relevant sanctions and approvals is per se deficiency…………”  However, in the present case, the opposite parties did not place on record all the documents, referred to, in the table aforesaid. As such, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that had all the said documents been placed on record, the same would have gone against the interest of the opposite parties, as it would have been evident therefrom that when huge amount of Rs.13,87,500/- was received from the complainant in November 2011, they were not even owners of the land, whereupon the project was to be developed. This act amounts to grave unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 11.                Furthermore, amount accepted at the time of booking was more than 25% i.e. Rs. 13,87,500/- against Rs.46,25,000/- Thereafter also, more amount was received by the opposite parties and by 03.06.2014, total amount of Rs.30,06,250/- stood paid by the complainant. No Agreement was got signed, as is mandatory under the above said provisions. As such, there is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite parties that permission seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA has finally been granted only in the year 2017, which cannot be said to have any retrospective effect but on the other hand, will have prospective effect only. As such, it could very well be said that by selling the units without authority, the opposite parties violated the provisions of PAPRA, and the said violation amounts to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on their part.             Similar controversy came up for consideration before this Commission, qua this project owned by the opposite parties, in the case of Shaminder Walia and another Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Consumer Complaint no.918 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2017 (alongwith six connected cases). Noting similar contentions, this Commission observed as under:-
“To get a plot allotted in the project named as ‘Palm Garden’, first payment was received by the opposite party on 11.01.2012. It is virtually admitted on record that when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. It is admitted in the written version that part of the project of the opposite party was approved much later, in the year March 2013. Formal Agreement was signed with the Govt. of Punjab on 14.06.2013. Thereafter, additional area was added and supplementary agreement was signed on 16.06.2016. Notification granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA was issued only on 25.01.2017. Perusal of the said notification makes it very clear that exemption given was conditional, as has been referred in para no.5 of the said notification. Besides other conditions, condition no.5 (iii to vii), reads thus:-
“(iii). The promoter shall deposit the entire amount in respect of the contribution to the Punjab Urban Development Fund, created under section 32 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Act, 1995 (Act No.14 of 1995), within a period of 30 days of the sanctioning of their layout plan.
(iv). The promoter shall acquire the ownership of project land in its name including land under agreement to develop and land under agreement to sell. The plots falling under land proposed to be acquired if any through Govt. acquisition, plot through which revenue rasta or khali passes shall not be developed and sold till these pockets are acquired and ownership is transferred in the name of the Promoter.
(v)      The plots/land to which the access is proposed through the land to be acquired if any by the Government shall not be developed and sold till that land under the access is acquired and transferred in the name of the promoter and access is provided.
(vi)     The promoter shall be responsible for obtaining the final NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board.
(vii)     Before starting the development of the proposed project promoter shall obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India as required under EIA notification dated 14.9.2006 as well as consent to establish (NOC) from the Punjab Pollution Control Board.”  
It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.”. 12.                Admittedly, a copy of draft of buyer’s agreement was sent to the complainant, only via email dated 03.01.2018. However, on finding terms and conditions contrary to what was promised at the time of booking of the plot, in question, the same was not signed by the complainant. It has been found by this Commission, in almost all the cases filed against the Company, that buyer’s agreement was not sent to the allottees for their signatures, within a reasonable period. It was only when number of complaints had been filed against the opposite parties before this Commission, in which it was held that such an act amounts to unfair trade practice, they started sending buyer’s agreement and that too after a huge delay and also after receiving substantial amount. This act of the opposite parties certainly needs to be deprecated. 13.                At the time of arguments, Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, argued with vehemence that issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption from the applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, in question, will relate back to the year 2011, when application was filed to get licence, under the mega housing policy. In a way, it was said that when the above notification was issued, it ratifies all the mistakes/irregularities committed by the opposite parties, qua sale of plots in the year 2011, without obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals from the Competent Authorities. To say so, reliance has been placed upon the ratio of judgment in the case of M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) SCC Page 116. 
            On perusal of the entire record and documents, we are not going to accept the said arguments. In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), similar contention was raised and the same was rejected by this Commission, by observing as under:-
“It was contended by Counsel for the opposite party that after issuance of notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the irregularities adopted by it qua sale of plots in the year 2012, etc. stands rectified. In para no.16 of its reply, it was specifically stated by the opposite party that irregularity in accepting expression of interest for sale of the plot in the said project, will have no adverse effect.
                We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. As stated above, when the project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed or admitted irregularities made, cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.775 of 2016 decided on 23.03.2017 (02 connected cases), wherein it was observed as under:-
 “It is specifically mentioned that before starting development of the proposed project, promoter was to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India, in terms of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006. There is nothing on record that such clearance was obtained by the opposite party. Further, it was also mentioned that requisite amount be paid towards Punjab Urban Development fund, within a period of 30 days, from the date of sanctioning of layout plans. No evidence has been placed on record, showing payment of the aforesaid amount. Furthermore, it is mandated that the promoter shall also be responsible for getting No Objection Certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. No document exists on record, showing that such approval was obtained by the opposite party.  Contention of Counsel for the opposite party that notification dated 25.01.2017 exempting applicability of many provisions of PAPRA qua mega project, the sale of plots in the year 2011 etc. stands rectified. We are not going to agree with the contention raised. There is nothing on record that the said notification is retrospective in nature. When project was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite party. The sale was made in contravention of the provisions of PAPRA and upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, violation committed cannot be rectified. Similar question qua this very project, came up for consideration before this Commission in  Monika Vs. M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Limited, Complaint case no.251 of 2016 decided on 27.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:-
“The pleadings of the parties indicate that when project was marketed and sold, not even a single permission was available with the project proponent/opposite party. There is a complete violation of the provisions of the PAPRA. It is an admitted case of the opposite party that application seeking exemption from the applicability of provisions of PAPRA is still pending under consideration, with the Authorities concerned. Unless exemption is granted, its violation would amount to adoption of an unfair trade practice, which is glaring and vivid on the part of the opposite party, in this complaint.
Qua a similar project launched by the opposite party in the same area, in  Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, under similar circumstances, this Commission, while dismissing the said appeal, has observed as under:-
“The documents placed on record clearly show that the project was launched without getting any permission from the Competent Authorities. Detailed brochure was issued showing facilities to be made available in the project launched and its layout plan. It is also on record that when it came to the notice of GMADA that the plots/flats are being sold unauthorizedly by the appellant, it gave a notice in the newspaper ‘Hindustan Times’ dated 18.08.2012, which reads thus:-
                “PUBLIC NOTICE This is for the information of one and all that it has come to the notice of the Competent Authority that one company named as M/s Manohar Singh & Co. is allegedly booking/selling plots in the Mullanpur- Siswan region near Chandigarh border in the State of Punjab. This is being intimated that the above said project is not approved by the State Government. The Competent Authority is initiating legal proceedings in this regard.
If anybody has booked or purchased any plot in the locality mentioned above he/she is advised to contact the undersigned along with documentary proof for further legal action against the said promoter. Further, while buying any plot in any locality falling under the jurisdiction of GMADA, all are advised to visit the website www.gmada.gov.in to verify if the colony/project is approved or not.
Chief Administrator GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PUDA Bhawan, Sector 62, SAS Nagar”.
It is specifically stated in the notice dated 18.08.2012 that the appellant was allegedly booking/selling the plots in Mullanpur, near Chandigarh Border, in the State of Punjab, unauthorizedly. It was further stated that the project is not approved by the Competent Authority and it (Competent Authority) is initiating legal proceedings against the project proponent for its activity. Above said notice makes it very clear that when the plot was sold on 13.04.2012, the project was not approved by the Competent Authorities. It is also so reflected in the details given by the appellant with this appeal, which is available at page 33 of the paper book. Reading of above said document, makes it very clear that the project was approved by the Government on 25.04.2013; Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 03.05.2013; Change of Land Use (CLU) certificate was granted on 31.03.2014; project was registered on 21.06.2014; No Objection Certificate by the District Forest Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali, was issued on 14.07.2014; Zoning plan was approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 24.11.2015 and Detailed Project Report (DPR)/Service Plans were approved by the Chief Engineer, GMADA, Mohali, on 27.11.2015. As per established law, if the project proponent sells the project without obtaining necessary permissions or clear title of the acquired land, it would amount to adopting unfair trade practice. It was so said by the Hon’ble National Commission in  Atul Maheshwari and ors. Vs. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, II (2016) CPJ 623 (NC). Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus:-
“OP should not have announced the scheme, until or unless they got clear title of the acquired land”.
 Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in  Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.756 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, when upholding the findings given by this Commission, that the project cannot be even marketed before getting approvals/sanctions, from the Competent Authorities, to launch it, it was observed by the National Commission, as under:-
 “We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel.  While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the opposite parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-
If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.
6.    We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission.  As noted above, the petitioners happen to be body corporate.  Before offering the farmhouses in the said project as Agent of Respondent No. 2, they must be aware about the status of the sanction for launch of the project.  Therefore, it is beyond one’s comprehension that the present Petitioner was not aware about the actual state of affairs for which only the developer could be held responsible.”
                In the present case also, there is nothing on record that when expression of interest/applications were invited to sell the said project, clear intimation was given to the intending purchasers that the project sold was in infancy stage and it will take years together before necessary permissions will be provided by the Competent Authorities.”
14.                In the present case also, as stated above, there is nothing on record to show that when the project, in question, was launched and sold, any permission was available with the opposite parties. It is also not proved on record that the said fact of selling the project without permissions/approvals was brought to the notice of the intending purchasers. The purchasers were not informed that it will take years for obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals, after sale of the said project. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that when notification dated 25.01.2017 granting exemption to the opposite parties from the applicability of some provisions of the PAPRA was granted, violations committed were brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities/Govt. The mega housing policy and the provisions of PAPRA debars any builder to advertise and sell the project before getting necessary sanctions. Merely because in some newspaper, a notice had appeared on behalf of the GMADA intimating the general public that Manohar Singh and Company is selling the project unauthorizedly, would not amount to intimation to the Competent Authorities i.e. the Govt. of Punjab, that the opposite parties have committed many mistakes, while selling the project, in question. Had those mistakes been brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities, at the relevant time, the license to launch the said project, was bound to be rejected, being in violation of provisions of the PAPRA; Special Package of Incentives under Industrial Policy 2009 and mega housing policy. Any ratification is possible, in case, the mistake committed is brought to the notice of the Competent Authorities. Thereafter only the Competent Authorities by passing a conscious order can ratify the said mistake. In the present case, merely issuance of notification aforesaid, by the Competent Authorities, on 25.01.2017, would not ratify the mistakes committed in law by the opposite parties.
15.                Such a contention also came up for consideration, before this Commission in Shaminder Walia’s case (supra) and it was rejected by observing as under:-
“It was vehemently contended by Counsel for the opposite party that once exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA stood granted in the year January 2017, it will relate back to the date of launching of the project, and all irregularities stands rectified. To support above said contention, he has placed reliance on the ratio of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as  M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 130.
                We are not going to accept the arguments raised. It has already been held in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra) that upon issuance of notification in the month of January 2017, granting exemption from the applicability of the provisions of PAPRA, violation committed prior thereto, cannot be rectified. To so say, in  Sukhvinder Singh Hayer` case (supra), reliance was also placed upon the judgment passed by this Commission in  Monika`s case (supra). The said finding was given in consonance with the findings of the National Commission in  Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another`s case (supra).
                As far as the reliance placed by Counsel for the opposite party on  M/s Murudeshwara Ceramics` case (supra) is concerned, we have gone through the facts of the same very carefully and found that the same were altogether different from the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, when interpreting the provisions of Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it was stated that power of the Government to grant exemption with regard to the land, in any area from operation of some of the provisions of the Act, for using the said land for a particular purpose, are to be seen, not at the time of sale/purchase of the land in dispute, but at the time, when it was going to be put for the said use. It was noted that after sale of the land, in dispute, when it was going to be put for industrial use, exemption already stood granted. The position is altogether different; as in the present case, by indulging into selling the project without any sanctions in its hands, the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice, as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) (i) and (iii) of the CP Act.
                It is apparent on record that in the year 2012, activities of the opposite party in selling the project, without any sanction were noticed by the Competent Authorities and on 18.08.2012, as a result whereof, notice was published in a newspaper, stating that such sale was illegal. Copy of newspaper dated 18.08.2012, in which the said public notice was issued by the GMADA, is placed on record as Annexure C-10, in  consumer complaint bearing no.890 of 2016, titled as Sheela Devi and another Vs. Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Private Limited.”.
16.                In the case of Shaminder Walia (supra), it was vehemently contended that M/s Manohar Singh and Co. and the opposite parties namely M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., are two different identities and notice issued in the said newspaper qua M/s Manohar Singh and Co. will not have any effect, so far, the project of the opposite parties (M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.) is concerned. The said contention was rejected by this Commission, by placing reliance upon various documents and the photographs.             In the present case, it was fairly admitted by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, that the opposite parties are part and parcel of M/s Manohar Singh and Co. Above fact clearly demonstrates that the GMADA, when came to know about unauthorized sale of a project, issued a notice asking general public not to purchase any property from the opposite parties and also contemplated a legal action. However, it appears that no such legal action was taken against the opposite parties. It may be on account of connivance of the opposite parties with Offices of the said Authority.       
17.                Further contention of Counsel for the complainant is that amount was received without offering Buyer’s Agreement for signing, within a reasonable period say two or three months. This fact is not seriously disputed. It is only said that since the complainant had already been provided with copy of draft of the agreement on 03.01.2018, he may come forward for execution of the same. As per the provisions of Section 6 of the PAPRA, it is incumbent upon the project proponent to execute Buyer’s Agreement on accepting application for purchase of unit etc., within a reasonable time say about two to three months. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing within reasonable time, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and also were deficient in providing service. It was also earlier so said by this Commission, in a case titled as  Usha Kiran Ghangas Vs DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited, Complaint Case No.93 of 2016, decided on 02.06.2016. Relevant portion of the said case, reads thus:-
“The opposite parties are also guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is on record that the complainant booked the unit, in question, in the project aforesaid, on 16.02.2011. She was allotted unit, vide letter dated  23.02.2011, on which date, she had paid an amount of Rs.4 lacs. Buyer’s Agreement was not put for signing in a reasonable time, say two  to three months. She continued to make payment and when Buyer’s Agreement was got signed, on 18.08.2011, she had already paid an amount of Rs.21,68,524/-. By not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, the opposite parties also committed unfair trade practice. The complainant is a widow. Her interest needs to be protected”.
            As such, in the present case, by not offering Buyer’s Agreement, for signing in a reasonable time, and at the same time sending the same after an inordinate delay i.e. only on 03.01.2018 and that too with terms and conditions heavily loaded/one sided, the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service. 18.                At the time of arguments, it was also vehemently contended by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate for the opposite parties that application to get mega project approved, was filed in the year 2011. Delay occurred on account of laxity on the part of the bureaucrats/Competent Authorities in granting permissions/approvals and further it was deliberately delayed, because of rivalry existing between the political party in power and the Managing Director/Directors of the Company.             Such a plea has been taken just to raise it without any material on record. It may be stated here that if the application to get necessary permissions, was moved in the year 2011 before the Competent Authorities, what happened thereafter; whether any objection was raised; whether at any point of time, it was taken up with the Authorities concerned, to give permission(s), within three months, as per Rules or not, has not been made clear. There is nothing on record that when the Competent Authorities allegedly did not grant permissions/approvals and delayed the matter, any reminders were sent to them, to do the needful. Not even a single document has been placed on record that the Competent Authorities delayed the matter deliberately, despite the fact that necessary steps were taken at the end of the opposite parties, for obtaining requisite permissions, for launching and selling the said project. At the same time, there is nothing on record, whether any Officer(s) of the Management of this Company was/were the member(s) of any political party; they ever contested any election; and whether question of rivalry causing delay on account of political reasons was ever taken up before the Competent Fora/Court of Law. It is on record that to get necessary permission qua the land in the project, applications were moved in parts. The opposite parties continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the opposite parties, stands rejected. 19.                A plea was also taken by the opposite parties, in their written version, to the effect that delay in delivery of possession of the plot was caused on account of ban on mining, as such, building material such as sand etc., remained short to an extent, meaning thereby that it had encountered force majeure circumstances.
            It may be stated here that as regards the alleged shortage of construction material like sand etc. in the market, nothing has been placed on record, by the opposite parties, to prove that it was unable to procure the said construction material, in adequate quantity. There is no evidence of the opposite parties having invited tenders for supply of construction material and there being no response to such tenders. A similar plea for delay in delivery of possession of the units, was taken by a builder, before the Hon`ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Consumer Case No.347 of 2014, titled as Swaran Talwar & 2 others v. M/s Unitech Limited (along three connected complaints),  decided on 14 Aug 2015,  which was rejected and the complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to be present case. In the present case also, the opposite parties failed to convince this Commission, that they actually encountered force majeure circumstances, as a result whereof, delay in handing over possession of the unit occurred. As such, the stand taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, is rejected.
20.                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. 
21.                Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 22.                Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the face of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, whereby the Govt. of Punjab, has granted permission to complete the project by 13.06.2018, and thereafter, further extension has been granted to them, by RERA to complete the project till 31.07.2019, as such, the complainant was to be handed over possession of the plot, on or before that date.             First coming to the Supplementary Agreement dated 16.06.2016, it may be stated here that we have gone through the contents thereof, and are of the considered opinion that it is of no help to the opposite parties, as far delay in delivery of possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant is concerned. The said Agreement was signed between the opposite parties and the Govt. of Punjab, only in relation to permission sought by them (opposite parties), vide letter dated 25.08.2015 (after about more than three and a half years of booking of the present plot), for addition of 94.60 acres of more land in the project area. It was on account of this reason, that supplementary agreement was executed.             At the same time, if this plea taken by the opposite parties that since supplementary agreement was executed on 16.06.2016 between them and the Govt. of Punjab and as such, now they (opposite parties) are liable to hand over possession of the plot to the complainant latest by 13.06.2018 (date already expired), is considered in favour of the opposite parties, then it would amount to admittance on their (opposite parties) part that till 16.06.2016, they were not in possession of the land even, but on the other hand, they had booked a plot and received 30% of the price of the plot, as far as back in 2011 and thereafter further amount till 03.06.2014. Furthermore, it is not clarified by the opposite parties that if the land for plot was ultimately got in their hands, by way of supplementary agreement dated 16.06.2016, then for which land, they were talking about in the application acknowledgment receipt dated 24.10.2011 Annexure C-3 issued in favour of the complainant, saying that all layout plans, specification and other details are tentative. If this is so, it amounts to grave unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as they had received an amount of Rs.13,87,500/- against a plot by November 2011, but on the other hand, till 15.06.2016, they have not even acquired land for the same (plot).             Now coming to the letter dated 13.07.2018, Annexure O-2, we have gone through the same and found that extension has been granted to the opposite parties by RERA only with regard to registration of the project. This letter cannot be made a basis to say that the opposite parties were given any immunity out of the deficiencies and unfair trade practice, adopted by them, in respect of the plot, in dispute. Even otherwise, the said extension of registration has been given in respect of the project namely “The Palm (Palm Downtown/Palm Central Bay)” and not the Palm Garden.             Sequence of events narrated above, clearly goes to prove that the conduct of the opposite parties, throughout remained contumacious. As stated above, not even a single permission to launch the project was available with the opposite parties at the relevant time. As has been discussed in earlier part of this order, permissions continued to pour in, upto the year 2017. Even as on today, there is nothing on record to show that development at the site is complete. It can safely be said that the complainant was well within his right, to file this complaint. It was nowhere agreed to between the parties, at the time of booking of the said plot, that the complainant can be made to wait for an indefinite period.             At the same time, in the face of plea having been taken by the opposite parties that they were required to deliver possession of the plot to the complainant by 13.06.2018, as per the terms and conditions of the supplementary Agreement, or by 31.07.2019, referred to above, as such, in the same breath taking a plea that the present case is beyond limitation or that time is not to be considered as essence of the contract, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly rejected. Even otherwise, it is not the proven case of the opposite parties that they were ready with delivery of possession of the plot, within a reasonable period of about two to three years, from the date of booking or say by 13.06.2018 even, but the complainant, failed to take the same, on account of some personal grounds/ financial constraints. It is settled law that in the cases, where possession of the residential units is not offered by the builder, there is a continuing cause of action, in favour of the allottee/purchaser.  
23.                Further contention was raised by Counsel for the opposite parties that in the face of provisions of the RERA, under which the opposite parties have registered the project, in question, on 15.09.2017, it is not open to this Commission, to entertain and decide the present complaint. He further asserted that sufficient safeguard is provided under the provisions of RERA and if the complainant is feeling aggrieved of any action, on the part of the opposite parties, he may approach under the said Act (RERA) and not under the Act, 1986.             We are not inclined to accept this argument. At the time of arguments, it is very fairly admitted by Counsel for the contesting parties, that the provisions of RERA are prospective in nature. It was also so said by the High Court of Bombay in the case of NeelKamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors. 2018 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 298. It is an admitted fact that under the RERA, the opposite parties got themselves registered their project, only on 15.09.2017. Some of the provisions of RERA came into operation on 01.05.2016 and even the remaining of it, in May 2017. In all, the grievance has been raised by the complainant qua wrongful act/mistake done leading to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, in selling the project by the opposite parties without sanctions/approvals, before coming into existence of RERA. Reading of the provisions of Section 88 of RERA makes it very clear that the same are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Section 79 of the RERA further makes it very clear that jurisdiction of only the Civil Court to entertain a suit or proceedings qua action taken as per the provisions of the said Act, is barred.             It may be stated here that the Consumer Foras under the Act, 1986 despite having some trappings of a Civil Court are not the Civil Courts. As such, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Foras is not debarred, to entertain the complaints filed by consumers, alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. Intention of the framers of law has been made clear by the concerned Department i.e. Ministry of Housing and Urban Property Alleviation, Government of India in its website www.mygov.in/group/ministry-housing-and-urban-poverty-alleviation. Under Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), at Sr.nos. 85 and 86, it was observed as under:-
 “85. Are the civil courts and consumer forums barred from entertaining disputes under the Act?
As per section 79 of the Act civil courts are barred from entertaining disputes (suits or proceedings) in respect of matters which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine. However, the consumer forums (National, State or District) have not been barred from the ambit of the Act. Section 71 proviso permits the complainant to withdraw his complaint as regards matters under section 12, 14, 18 and section 19, from the consumer forum and file it with the adjudicating officer appointed under the Act.  86. Can a complainant approach both the Regulatory Authority/adjudicating officer and the consumer forums for the same disputes?
The laws of the country do not permit forum shopping, thus, an aggrieved can only approach one of the two for disputes over the same matter.”
            It was also so said by the State of Punjab in its Official Website Portal rera.punjab.gov.in. The above fact clearly indicates that in the face of provisions of the RERA, any action taken under the provisions of Act 1986 is not debarred.  
            Be that as it may, a similar question came up for consideration, before this Commission, when considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 8 (amended) of Arbitration Act 1996 Act viz a viz CPA 1986, in the case of  ‘Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited’, IV (2016) CPJ 126, wherein, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as  Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6  SCC 385, C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233,  Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha   (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC),  and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC),  it was held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.             It was authoritatively said that in view of Section 3 of the Act 1986, it is open to the consumers to approach the Consumer Foras, for redressal of their grievance, notwithstanding that he/she can get relief under any other Act. Similar findings, to the effect that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainant(s) and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017, vide order dated 13.02.2018.
            In view of above findings, we can safely say that provision of the RERA and PAPRA will not debar the jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the complaints filed by a consumer alleging deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties.
24.                In the present case, an attempt has been made to by-pass the above provision of PAPRA by showing the sale as an expression of interest to purchase a plot. It has been so said before this Commission, at the time of arguments, by Counsel for the opposite parties that sale of the plot has not yet been confirmed. It may be stated here that it was an outright sale, when first payment of Rs.13,87,500/- was accepted by the opposite parties, in the year 2011 and thereafter also they kept on demanding amount from the complainant, and by June 2014, Rs.30,06,250/- stood paid, towards price of the said plot. Above said contention raised by Counsel for the opposite parties, qua similar project, was rejected by this Commission, in Appeal No.248 of 2016, decided on 31.08.2016, titled as M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Limited Vs. Sh.Tilak Raj Bakshi, wherein it was observed as under:-
“Furthermore, as is evident from the documents on record, the appellant is also guilty of violation of Section 6 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995, (in short the PAPRA Act). In a very deceptive manner, an attempt has been made to show actual sale of plot, as an expression of interest. As has been held in earlier part of this order, vide document Annexure C-2, the terms and conditions of sale settled to make payment was also made available. Once it is so, by not offering the Buyers Agreement for signing in a reasonable time, say two to three months but on the other hand, after a lapse of many years of the sale of plot, the appellant has committed an unfair trade practice.”
25.                It is evident from the facts mentioned above that when the project in question was sold, neither CLU nor any other permission was available with the opposite parties. The Agreement was entered into with the Govt. only on 14.06.2013, to launch this project and that too, subject to many conditions. It is also on record that to get necessary permission qua land in the project, applications were moved in parts. Opposite parties continued to purchase land and continued moving the applications, to the Authorities. Facts clearly indicate that the opposite parties were guilty of launching a project against mandate of law. 26.                In view of above, contention of Counsel for the opposite parties that since the complainant himself has showed preference for a plot, after expression of interest was filled by him and he waited for allotment of a plot, as such, delay if any will be deemed to have been waived of by him, stands rejected. There is nothing on record to show that plot was selected by the complainant and further when the plot was sold, not even a single permission was available with the opposite parties. There is also nothing on record to show that delay caused was condoned by the complainant. The opposite parties also cannot take shelter under the plea that time is not to be considered as essence of the contract. 27.                xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28.                  At the same time, it is also held that no complicated question of facts and law are involved in this case. It is a simple case of non-execution of agreement within the reasonable time; non-allotment of plot; and non-delivery of possession of the plot(s)/unit(s) purchased by the complainant, in the project of the opposite parties. This is a case of deficiency in providing service and also adoption unfair trade practice. This Commission is, therefore, competent to adjudicate the present complaint. Plea taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, as such, stands rejected. 29.                It has further been vehemently contended by Sh.I.P. Singh, Advocate, that possession of the plot will be offered on signing of buyer’s agreement by the complainant, copy of which has already been supplied to him, on 03.01.2018. He may come and do so. It may be stated here that once it has been held above that the opposite parties indulged into unfair trade practice and were also deficient in providing service, as they failed to obtain necessary permissions to launch and sell the said project and also there has been an inordinate delay in handing over possession of the plot(s), as such, now at this stage, this stand has no significant value in the eyes of law.
30.                        As far as plea taken by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant was defaulter in making payment towards price of the said unit, it may be stated here that once it has been proved on record that the opposite parties are guilty of delay in completing the project and even as on today the complainant is empty handed, as such, in those circumstances, it is not expected from the complainant to keep on making payments to them. Still, the complainant had paid about 65% of sale consideration against the said plot.  If the complainant has not made the remaining amount towards price of the said plot, in our considered opinion, he was well within his right, to do so, in view of principle of law laid down in Prasad Homes Private Limited Vs. E.Mahender Reddy and Ors., 1 (2009) CPJ 136 (NC), wherein it was held that when development work was not carried out at the site, the payment of further installments can be stopped by the purchaser. As such, plea taken by the opposite parties, in this regard, stands rejected.”
                   In the present cases also, no such document has been produced on record by the opposite parties, which could persuade this Commission to deviate from the findings, what have been given in Pankaj Goyal’s case supra.
43.                 In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that all the consumer complaints deserve to be allowed and the complainants are entitled to get possession of their respective plots.
44.                 Now the question which falls for consideration, is, as to from which period the complainants are entitled to get compensation and at what rate, for delay in handing over possession of their respective plot. Since in the present cases, buyers agreement have not been executed between the parties, as such, a reasonable period of two years needs to be taken as the period, for completion of development work by the opposite parties and to hand over possession to the complainants. The view that ideally the possession of the plot would be delivered within 2 years from the date of allotment letter, in case there is no agreement between the parties, is support by the judgment of the National Commission titled as HUDA & ANR. Versus INDRA SOBTI, REVISION PETITION NO. 670 OF 2010 , decided on 12 Jun 2017. Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-
“…..Thus, it is clear that almost after 3½ years, the development works in the said area were not complete in totality.  The allotment letter describes that delivery of possession will be done on completion of development work.  We are of the view that ideally the possession of the plot would be delivered within 2 years from the date of allotment letter.  This view dovetails from catena of judgments on the subject….”.     Now the question that falls for consideration, is, as to what relief can be granted to the complainant, for delay, in offering possession thereof. A similar question, came up for consideration before this Commission in Ankur Gupta Vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, Consumer Case No.309 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2016, wherein dealing with similar issue, it was observed as under:-
“What relief can be granted to a consumer, in case of delay, in offering possession, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble National Commission, in a case titled as  Parsvnath Exotica Ghaziabad Resident’s Association Vs. Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., consumer complaint no.45/2015, decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, on 06.05.2016, wherein, it was argued by the project proponent that at the maximum, as provided in the Agreement, the consumer will be entitled to claim penalty for delayed compensation @Rs.5/- per square feet, per month. Noting that in case of delay in making payment, the project proponent was charging heavy penal interest, instead of penal amount, the interest on the deposited amount, for the period of delay was granted, by holding as under:-
“Though, the Agreement between the developer and the flat buyers provides for payment of compensation in case of delay @ Rs.5/- per square feet of the super area per month, such clauses have been found to be unfair trade practice and have been consistently rejected by this Commission in several decision, including  Consumer Complaint No. 427 of 2014 Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. Unitech Ltd. and connected matters decided on 08.6.2015.  Therefore, the aforesaid clauses cannot be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation payable to the members of the complainant association for the aforesaid delay in completion of construction.”
Not only this, in another case, titled as  Capt. Gurtaj Singh Sahni & anr. Vs Manager, Unitech Limited & anr., consumer complaint bearing no.603/2014, decided on 02.05.2016, the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the opposite party/builder to pay interest  on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit. Relevant contents of the said order reads thus:-
“8.   If the compensation for the delay in construction is restricted to what is stipulated in the Buyers Agreement, there will be no pressure upon the builder to complete the construction since he will be more than happy to keep on paying paltry compensation of about 3% per annum of the capital investment, instead of arranging funds at much higher cost, to complete the construction.
9.      xxxxxxxxxxxxx 10.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaints are disposed of with the following directions:
(1)     xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2)     The opposite party shall pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the expected date of possession till the date on which the possession is actually offered to the complainants after completing the construction in all respects and obtaining the requisite completion certificate.”
Thus, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, in the cases, referred to above, if interest @12% on the deposited amount for the period of delay, till delivery of possession of the unit, is awarded, that would meet the ends of justice.”
Not only as above, in H.P. Housing Board Vs. Janak Gupta [2009] INSC 627 (26 March 2009) (Civil Appeal No. 6346 of 2002), it was clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in the cases of delay, in delivery of possession, award of interest @12% per annum, on the deposited amount, for the period of delay, would meet the ends of justice.
45.                 As such, it is held that the complainants are entitled to interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, towards price of the said plot, for the period of delay in offering possession thereof till realization i.e. from two years from the date of booking till realization. Besides as above, the opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation to the complainants, for providing deficient service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.
46.                 We would also like to discuss slight distinction in the connected complaints, as pointed out by the Counsel for the opposite parties at the time of arguments as follows:-
47.                 In consumer complaint bearing No.77 of 2018, apart from issue qua IDC, as discussed above, the complainant has also challenged Preferential Location Charges (PLC). It was stated that since the plot, in question, was east facing, therefore, the opposite parties could not charge PLC. However, during arguments, when we peruse the Payment Plan (Annexure C-1) and Layout Plan (Annexure C-17), it became clear that since two sides of the plot, in question, are open, therefore, the PLC has to be paid by the complainant. When confronted with this situation, Counsel for the complainant conceded to our observation. Accordingly, the grievance raised qua charging of PLC stands rejected.
48.                 In consumer complaint bearing No.221 of 2018, additionally, adding to the common arguments raised, it was argued by the Counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint is barred by delay and latches as the complainant did not comply and adhere to the payment plan as he deposited only initial amounts of Rs.12.75 Lakhs and Rs.8.50 Lakhs on 27.06.2011 and 11.07.2011 respectively. It was also argued that the claim for refund is barred by limitation as no demand for refund of the amount was raised within a period of 3 years from the date of deposit of the amount and there is no cause of action within the period of two years from the date of filing the complaint and as such, the complaint is barred by limitation. We are not convinced with the argument raised as neither any plot has been allotted as yet in favour of the complainant nor the buyer’s agreement has been executed. In terms of demand raised vide letter dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure C-2), to proceed further on ‘Expression of Interest’ shown by the complainant, the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.8.50 Lakhs on 05.03.2014 vide Receipt (Annexure C-3), whereafter Application Acknowledgement dated 11.03.2014 (Annexure C-4) was issued incorporating therein payment of IDC also contrary to the Expression of Interest, wherein only EDC and PLC were shown as payable. It may also be stated here that since there is no allotment of plot as yet, the complainant is seeking allotment of 250 sq. yards plot and issuance of an allotment letter. The complainant in his rejoinder filed has also stated that the opposite parties committed the default in not issuing the allotment letter and executing the buyer’s agreement in spite of receiving 50% of the sale consideration. Therefore, once there is clear cut lapse and deficiency in rendering service on part of the opposite parties in not making allotment in favour of the complainant, the objection raised qua the complaint being time barred has no merit and the same stands rejected.
49.                 In consumer complaint bearing No.235 of 2018, an objection was also taken by the opposite parties that since permission to file joint complaint has not been sought by the complainants, who are husband and wife, as such, the said complaint be dismissed on this ground alone. We do not agree with the contention raised.  Perusal of contents of the said complaint reveal that the same has been signed by both the complainants and also affidavits to that extent have also been filed by them. As such, no separate application was required to be moved by the complainants, for filing a joint complaint, especially in the face of the reason that the plot was purchased by them, being first allottee and second allottee. However, perusal of complaint file shows that as a precautionary measure, the complainants moved an application seeking permission to file joint complaint alongwith the complaint, which was allowed on 25.05.2018, when notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. It may also be stated here under similar circumstances, this Commission has rejected the plea of the opposite parties in Consumer Complaint bearing No.290 of 2018 filed by Naresh Mehta and Geeta, who were husband and wife against the opposite parties i.e. M/s Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions Private Limited. Not only above, in a Consumer Complaint No. 2809 OF 2018, KARNAIL SINGH & 2 ORS. Vs. M/S. EMERALD LANDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED & 5 ORS., 02 Jan 2019, filed by complainants, before the National Commission, they had moved application seeking permission to file a joint complaint. However, the said application was dismissed by the National Commission while holding as under:-
“The present Complaint appears to have wrongly been filed along with an Application under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of three Complainants. As all the three Complainants have jointly been allotted Plot No. D-110, admeasuring 1290.98 sq. yards in Imperial Golf Estate at Village Mullanpur and Talwandi Khurd, District Ludhiana (Punjab) by Opposite Party No.1, the Application filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act is wholly misconceived and is hereby rejected.  The Complaint is treated to have been filed under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act.    
Complaint Admit subject to just exceptions.
In the notice to be issued to the Opposite Parties, returnable on 06.05.2019, it shall be stated that they are required to file their Written Versions within a maximum stipulated period of 45 days from the date of receipt of notice in the Complaint.  ”
  The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the present case, and as such, objection taken in this regard, stands rejected.
50.                 Similar objection raised in consumer complaint bearing No.14 of 2019 of not filing application seeking permission to file joint complaint by the complainants who are husband and wife, also stands rejected in view of observations made in the preceding paragraph.
51.                 In consumer complaint bearing No.235 of 2018, a plea was also raised by the opposite parties in their reply that the complainants have made a benami transaction for commercial purpose as payments of Rs.6,20,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.10,80,000/- were made on behalf of a Firm, namely, Raj Electric & Radiator Works vide cheques, Annexure C-2, C-3 & C-5 respectively, and as such they are not consumers. We are not going to accept this argument of the opposite parties. The opposite parties accepted the amounts without any demur and kept on raising demand from time to time. Moreover, making payment of due installments is the complainant’s concern. Had there been any non-acceptance of amount by the opposite parties, it would have to be then and there when those amounts were paid by the complainants. Objection raised after such a belated stage is a technical one and cannot be gone into merely on saying by the opposite parties, who are themselves responsible for not handing over the possession of the plot to the complainants after such a long time despite receiving 50% of the total sale consideration.
52.                 In consumer complaint bearing No.471 of 2018, during the course of arguments, no special distinction was pointed out by the Counsel for the opposite parties. Only an argument qua EDC & IDC payable in terms of Application Acknowledgement (Annexure C-5) was raised by him, which we have already rejected in the preceding part of the judgment. The complainant, in this case also, is not liable to pay IDC. However, EDC he has to pay in accordance with the Expression of Interest (Annexure C-1).
53.                 During pending proceedings in this complaint, an issue was also raised by the complainants qua demand of exorbitant possession charges by the opposite parties. However, at the time of hearing final arguments, no argument was addressed qua that issue because during the course of arguments, Sh. I. P. Singh, Counsel for the opposite parties very fairly and categorically stated at bar that the opposite parties will not charge possession charges. Otherwise also, we do not find any justification for charging such an amount. No provisions to support that charge has been shown to us. Accordingly, in view of statement made at bar by Counsel for the opposite parties and finding no merit in charging such charges, we are of the considered opinion, that neither the opposite parties can charge such charges nor the complainants are liable to pay possession charges at all.
54.                 Summing up all what has been discussed above, the complainants, in this bunch of consumer complaints are entitled to compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. two years from the date of application for booking of the plots, in question. For mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, we award an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses, in each case.
55.                 No other point was urged by the contesting parties.
56.                 For the reasons recorded above, all the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-
  Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2018                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
                  (i).        To handover possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants). It is made clear that IDC is not payable by the complainants.
                (ii).        To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
              (iii).        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 20.04.2014 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
               (iv).        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
                (v).        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
               (vi).        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-  to the complainants, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2018                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
                  (i).        To handover possession of the plot, in question, to the complainant, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant). It is made clear that IDC is not payable by the complainants.
                (ii).        To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.
              (iii).        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 23.11.2013 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
               (iv).        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
                (v).        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
               (vi).        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-  to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint No.221 of 2018                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
(i)           To handover possession of the 250 sq. yards plot, to the complainant, by issuing an allotment letter in his favour, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant). It is made clear that IDC is not payable by the complainant.
(ii)          To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.
(iii)        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 27.06.2013 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
(iv)        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
(v)          To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
(vi)        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint No.235 of 2018                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
                  (i).        To handover possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants). Though IDC issue was not raised in this complaint but still, we made it clear that IDC is not payable by the complainants.
                (ii).        To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
              (iii).        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 06.01.2014 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
               (iv).        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
                (v).        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
               (vi).        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainants, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint No.471 of 2018                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
                  (i).        To handover possession of the 200 sq. yards plot, to the complainant, by issuing an allotment letter in his favour, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from him (complainant). It is made clear that IDC is not payable by the complainant.
                (ii).        To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by him to the Registering Authorities.
              (iii).        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainant, from 19.02.2013 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
               (iv).        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
                (v).        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
               (vi).        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/-  to the complainant, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2019                    The opposite parties, jointly and severally are directed:-
                  (i).        To handover possession of the plot, in question, to the complainants, within a period of 02 months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, complete in all respects, after obtaining necessary completion/partial completion certificate, from the competent authorities, on receipt of legally due amount from them (complainants). It is made clear that IDC is not payable by the complainants.
                (ii).        To execute and get registered the sale deed, in respect of the plot, in question, in favour of the complainants, within two months, from the date of handing over possession, as indicated in Clause (i) above, on payment of registration and stamp duty charges, by them to the Registering Authorities.
              (iii).        To pay compensation, by way of interest @12% p.a., on the entire deposited amount, to the complainants, from 06.01.2014 to 31.07.2019, within two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry penal interest @15% p.a. instead of 12% p.a., till realization.
               (iv).        To pay compensation by way of interest @12% p.a. on the entire deposited amount, w.e.f. 01.08.2019, onwards (per month), till actual delivery of physical possession of the plot, by the 10th of the following month, failing which, the same shall also carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., from the date of default, till payment is made.
                (v).        To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, on account of mental agony, physical harassment, caused to the complainants, deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
               (vi).        To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to the complainants, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall also carry interest @12% p.a., from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
57.                 Certified Copies of this order be placed in the files of connected Consumer Complaints bearing Nos.77 of 2018, 221 of 2018, 235 of 2018, 471 of 2018 and 14 of 2019.
58.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
59.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
18.07.2019  (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.) PRESIDENT        (PADMA PANDEY)         MEMBER        (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER   Ad        

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: