SANGEETA SHARMA vs M/S G.S. Promoters And Developers

THE facts germane to the case of Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, the complainant are these. She purchased flat No. 637 "Panchkula Heights " situated at Peermuchalla Zirakpur, Punjab from M/s G.S.Promoters and Developers, Panchkula, , Opposite Party, for a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-. She paid a total sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- to the OP. She was to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of delivery of possession of the flat, which was to be given on 30.11.2010. It was also stipulated in the agreement dated 11.05.2010 that in event of failure of delivery of the possession of the flat, the OP was under an obligation to pay the penalty of Rs. 9,000/- per month (i.e. Rs.5/- per square feet per month). The OP neither delivered the possession nor paid the penalty. The District Forum held that OP is guilty of deficiency in service and also of adapting unfair trade practice. The District Forum allowed the present complaint and gave the following directions:- "i) The opposite party is directed to offer possession of the apartment in question to the complainant forthwith. However, the complainant will pay the balance amount of Rs. 2 lacs at the time of delivery of possession as agreed between the parties in the Agreement to Sell (Exhibit C-1); ii) The opposite party is directed to refund/adjust the penalty/compensation @ Rs. 5/- per square feet per month to the complainant on super area of the apartment i.e. 1800 square feet on account of delay in offer of possession to be reckoned with 1.3.2011 till the date of offer of possession to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 24% per annum thereon. iii) The opposite party is directed to grant a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant on account of its deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practices and also for causing mental agony and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. iv) The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. "

AGGRIEVED by that order, the OP filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.12.2011, placed reliance on Apex Court authority reported in the case titled "Sonic Surgincal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2010 CTJ 2, it has been held by the Hon ''ble Apex Court that expression ''branch office '' in the Act means the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. Admittedly, in the present case, the flat in question of the complainant is located at Peermuchalla, Zirakpur, Punjab, therefore, complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint at District Forum, Panchkula. "

WE have heard both the counsel for the parties. It appears that the State Commission has wrongly applied the above said authority in this case. Section 4 of the said authority i.e. Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), it was held in para No. 4 and 5: "4. In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression ''cause of action '' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. 5. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh. "

IN the instant case attention of the Commission was invited towards the agreement arrived between the parties. Agreement to sell clearly goes to show that this was made at Panchkula on 11.05.2010. It further stipulates: "AND WHEREAS the above said buyer is interested to purchase a House/Flat No. 637 at Level/floor Sixth of super area 1800 sq.ft. (approx.) including stilt area, lift, stairs etc. in the project Panchkula Heights situated at Peermuchalla NSC Zirakpur (Pb) and the said House/Flat is under construction and free from all sorts of encumbrance i.e. sale, gift, mortgage, claims, charges, litigation etc. "

On the next page there is a note which is reproduced as follows:- "NOTE: The installment will be acceptable only by way of cash or local cheques/DD in favour of G.S. PROMOTERS and DEVELOPERS payable at Chandigarh/ Panchkula. "

THE allotment letter was issued by the OP from Panchkula. The same was also filed on the record. It is thus clear that part of cause of action arose at Panchkula.

THIS view further finds support from the two judgments of this Commission reported in Smt. Shanti Vs. M/s Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. in First Appeal No. 142 of 2001 and Neha Singhal Vs M/s Unitech Limited in First Appeal No. 426 of 2010. Consequently, we find that the order passed by the State Commission is not legally tenable, therefore, we set aside the same to this extent. The State Commission has also discussed the entire case of the complainant. He did not pick up a conflict with the main order passed by the District Forum. It was also mentioned that the District Forum has placed reliance on an authority of the Apex Court reported in the case of "Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Balbir Singh (2004(1)CPC 660 " wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to hold:- "ïf a consumer had to live in rented house due to delay in delivery of possession, he would be entitled to claim amount of rent he has paid during that period " It has been further observed by the Hon ''ble Apex Court that "Compensation can be awarded no only for loss of goods but also for causing mental agony due to rendering of deficient service---- Such compensation is a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power of these bodies. "

WE have also perused the judgment of District Forum. We see no flaw therein. Consequently, we accept the revision petition and restore the order passed by the District Forum. The petitioners are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from today or else, the opposite party will have to pay penalty of Rs. 1,000/- per day to the complainant, in addition, till the order is complied with.