MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. SANCHITA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - M/s Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Pvt. Ltd. has approached this Court seeking setting aside of order dtd. 10/9/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the NCDRC") vide which an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging order dtd. 21/7/2023 (Annexure P-14) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the SCDRC"), has been dismissed.

(2.) The matter arises out of consumer complaint filed by the respondent - Sanchita Chauhan before the SCDRC, wherein the complainant/respondent asserted that in the year 2011, her mother namely Santosh Chauhan had booked a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Palm Springs in a residential project 'The Palm' proposed to be developed by the petitioner herein in Mullanpur (New Chandigarh), SAS Nagar, Mohali for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,50,000.00 calculated at the rate of Rs.18,500.00 per sq. yard apart from EDC and PLC, if any. Initially, an amount of Rs.16,65,000.00 i.e. 30% of the sale consideration was paid as booking amount vide two cheques dtd. 4/9/2011. Subsequently, the said Santosh Chauhan made a request to transfer the said plot in the name of her daughter i.e. the respondent herein, which was accordingly allowed. It is further the case of the complainant that subsequently another amount of Rs.11,10,000.00 i.e. 20% of the sale consideration, was demanded on the ground that the project was at the final stage, which was paid by the complainant vide cheque dtd. 28/2/2014. Subsequently, on 15/5/2014, another amount of Rs.8,32,500.00 was demanded while representing that CLU had been granted and accordingly the said payment was also made vide cheque dtd. 30/5/2014. The complainant, upon finding the demands for substantial payments to be irrational, requested them vide email dtd. 22/9/2014 to provide complete schedule for further payments well in advance. Due to changing stand of the petitioner and while feeling harassed and trapped, the complainant asked for return of her money as no allotment or even execution of the Agreement had been carried out despite payment of 65% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.36,07,500.00, however, the petitioner refused to refund the amount and assured that they would allocate the plot by December, 2014. Subsequently, pursuant to letter dtd. 11/7/2015 asking the complainant to pay 50% of EDC and IDC charges etc. on the pretext of issuing the allotment letter, the complainant paid Rs.6,00,000.00 towards 50% of EDC and IDC and also paid Rs.5,55,000.00 towards 10% PLC and plot No.1411 measuring 300 sq. yards was allotted to the complainant. The complainant alleged that even without commencing development work, the petitioner offered possession of the plot in question and demanded more amount from her. The complainant had visited the project site several times, but could not find any development work having been executed and came to know that as a matter of fact several of the mandatory sanctions had not even been accorded. The complainant, thus, prayed for issuance of a direction to handover actual physical possession of the plot after obtaining completion occupation certificate and also claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount deposited by her.

(3.) The petitioner in the written statement denied all the material averments made in the complaint and asserted that the payment plan opted by the complainant was a time-linked payment plan and that the installments had been demanded as per the payment plan and that it was the complainant, who had been avoiding payment of EDC, IDC and PLC. The petitioner further took a stand that almost all the basic amenities had been made available on the project premises and most of the development works had been executed and that the remaining work was being undertaken in full swing.