Amandeep Aggarwal vs Sangrur Improvement Trust & Anr

As the dispute involved in aforesaid six First Appeals is same, they are disposed of by a common order.

First Appeal No.2203/2017 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 12.06.2017 in CC/12/2016. First Appeals Nos.2204/2017 & 2205/2017 have been filed by the Appellants/Complainants against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short “State Commission”) dated 27.07.2017 in CC/141/2016 and CC/142/2016. Cross Appeals Nos.2220/2017, 2437/2017 and 2221/2017 have been filed by the Respondents/Opposite Parties.

The case of the Appellants/Complainants is that the Opposite Party issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of flats. The booking commenced from 12.05.2011. The Complainants were allotted different flats. The Opposite Parties failed to handover possession within the stipulated time, in spite of payments made by the Complainants as per the schedule given in the allotment letters. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed separate Consumer Complaints with the State Commission seeking possession of their respective flats. First Appeal No.2203/2017 filed by the Complainant Amandeep Aggarwal, being lead Appeal, prayer is taken from this Complaint which reads as follows:

a)  The OPs be directed to immediately hand over the possession after completing it in a month at the same terms and conditions as in the allotment letter.

b)  An amount of Rs.10 lacs as compensation may also be awarded in favour of the complainant for mental harassment and agony;

c) An amount of Rs.10 lacs for the malpractice and deficiency in service;

d)  Cost and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.55,000/- may also be awarded;

e) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party, in the interest of justice.”

The Complains were contested by the Opposite Parties by filing the reply. It was stated that the Complainants failed to comply with the terms & conditions of the allotment letters. The agreement of sale was to be executed within 30 days from the date of allotment, which the Complainants failed to do. Delay in delivery of possession was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. The Government delayed giving certain approvals. Thereafter, tenders were published in the newspaper.

The State Commission, after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and going through the record, vide impugned orders allowed the Appeals. Impugned order dated 12.06.2017 passed in CC/12/2016 filed by the Complainant Amandeep Aggarwal, is reproduced as follows:

“As a result of above discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant and direct the complainant to pay the balance amount of instalments, if any due, without any interest thereupon to OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, whereupon OPs shall deliver the complete possession of the flat in question to the complainant within 45 days from the date of clearance of the dues of instalments, if any, by the complainant. We also award composite amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to complainant under all counts and further award Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant from OP.”

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties have filed the First Appeals as stated above.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Complainants submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that Appellants paid substantial amount towards cost of the flats and the Opposite Parties failed to deliver possession of the flats to the Complainants. The State Commission ought to have granted compensation @ 18% on the amount deposited by the Complainants from the respective dates of deposits till possession of the flats. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank 2007 CTJ 689 and this Commission in Pala Mal Singla vs. Improvement Trust, Sangrur & Anr. CC/319/2015 dated 16.05.2017.

Learned Counsel for Sangrur Improvement Trust/Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants defaulted in making payment of instalments as per schedule of the allotment letter. The Complainants were required to make payment in 10 installments but they deposited only 8 installments and failed to deposit 2 installments. He submitted that the State Commission ignored the fact that the Complainant Amandeep Aggarwal (FA/2437/2017) earlier filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, which was later on withdrawn and a fresh Consumer Complaint was filed with the State Commission without any application for condonation of delay. Learned Counsel relied on the judgment of this Commission in Ashok Kumar Chug vs. HUDA & Anr. (2015) 1 CPJ 225 (NC) and submitted that when the Complainant is defaulter, he cannot attribute deficiency in service to the Opposite Party. The State Commission also failed to appreciate that flats were to be handed over to the Complainants in semi-furnished condition on ‘as is where is basis.’ Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned orders are based on conjectures and surmises and the same are liable to be set aside.

Delay in delivery of possession is admitted by the Opposite Parties in the written statement filed before the State Commission. It was stated that the delay was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the Trust. The reasons cited by the Opposite Parties for the delay of the project, appear to be delaying tactics veiled as “Force Majeure” conditions and seem to be an attempt to wriggle out of its contractual obligations. The Complainants sought possession of their respective flats and compensation for delay in delivery of possession. The State Commission, however, directed the Opposite Parties to delivery possession of the flats in question to the Complainants within 45 days on their making balance payment. Instead of awarding interest for delayed period, the State Commission awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost in each case. In the instant Appeals, the Complainants have sought compensation for the delayed period. The Opposite Parties have sought setting aside of the impugned orders.

The State Commission, vide impugned orders, has maintained equity by not saddling the Opposite Parties with interest for delayed period. Similarly, the Complainants have been directed to make the balance payment to the Opposite Parties without interest. The Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties both failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference in the Appellate jurisdiction. First Appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.