M/s. Manohar Infrastructure vs Jorawer Singh Mann

The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2017 in complaint case no. 926 of 2016 of the State Commission whereby order of refund of the deposited amount had been directed along with interest @ 13% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits and compensation to the tune of Rs.1.25 lacs for causing mental agony and physical harassment was also awarded along with litigation cost to the tune of Rs.44,000/-.

This order has been impugned  before this Commission on several counts.

I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record.

The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant had advertised a project under the style of “Palm Garden” situated at Mullanpur, New Chandigarh, Punjab for sale of 300 sq yds. of residential plot at basic sale price of Rs. 54,60,000/-.  Admittedly, the complainant had also booked a plot in the said project and paid a total sum of Rs.34,30,000/- on various dates.  However, despite the deposit of the substantial amount towards the cost of the plot, no plot was allotted to him despite his waiting for several years.  Later on complainant came to know that Appellant did  not  have any requisite permission from the concerned authorities to sell the plot at the time when the project was advertised and money was accepted from the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said conduct of the Appellant, the complainant filed the complaint.

The complaint had been contested by the Appellant who was the opposite party before the State Commission. In the written version, it is not disputed by the Appellant that at the time when the project was advertised, they did not have the requisite permission from the concerned authorities and they were able to obtain permission only in the year 2017.  It is, however, contended that as soon as permission was granted, it automatically relate back to the original date.  It was submitted that it was the complainant who had defaulted in making the payments and so, the complaint was liable to dismissed.

Parties led their evidences before the State Commission.  After going through the evidences of the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned counsels and perusing the record, the State Commission found the Appellant deficient in providing the services and, therefore, the impugned order.

This order is impugned before me on the ground that rate of interest granted by the State Commission is towards the higher side and also that since the compensation in terms of interest had already been awarded, the grant of compensation under the heading of mental agony etc is in direct contradiction to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.S.Dhanda Etc. Etc. ( 2020 ) 16 SCC 318. It is prayed that impugned order be, therefore, set aside.

Counsel for the parties during the course of arguments has relied on the findings of this Commission in Appeal No.916 of 2018 titled M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Harjinder Singh which relates to the same project.  It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the respondent that similar directions as had been given in Harjinder Singh ( supra) can be given in this case as well.  Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the findings of this  Commission in the case of Harjinder Singh ( supra ).

From the evidences on record, it is apparent that at the time when the project was advertised and money was received by the Appellant, they did not have the requisite permission from the concerned Authorities for starting the said project.  This itself amounts to unfair trade practice and, therefore, it stands proved on record that they are deficient in providing services to the complainant / respondent.  The findings of the State Commission are, therefore, confirmed on this count.

Following the directions given by this Commission in Harjinder Singh ( supra ), while disposing of the present Appeal,  the following directions  are issued:

Appellant is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.34,30,000/- to the respondent / complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the respective dates of deposit till the date of payment.

To pay litigation cost of Rs.44,000/- as awarded by the State Commission.

While disposing of the present Appeal, I also award a litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

The entire payment shall be made within four months from the date of this order failing which it will attract penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The Appeal is partly allowed.