DEEPAK BUILDCON INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. HARMINDER KAUR SIDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act') against the Order dtd. 21/7/2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh ("the State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint No.303 of 2016 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.

(2.) For Convenience, the parties are being referred to as stated in the Complaint before the State Commission. Mrs. Harminder Kaur Sidhu is referred to as the Complainant. M/s. Deepak Buildcon Infrastructure through and its Proprietor Mr. Deepak Singal are referred to as the Opposite Parties (OPs)/ Builder.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that late Shri Raminder Singh Sidhu, husband of the Complainant, had applied for allotment of a flat in OPs project vide application dtd. 16/4/2007 for total sale consideration of Rs.44.00 Lakhs. Along with application, Rs.13.00 Lakhs was paid by a DD on 16/4/2007, and Rs.11.00 Lakhs was paid by cheque on 17/4/2007. Subsequently, a buyer's agreement was entered into on 14/9/2007, wherein the OPs agreed to sell Flat No. 5, 5th Floor, Block No. 3 in their group housing scheme 'Crosswinds Luxury Home' at Sunet, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. Following an initial payment of Rs.24.00 Lacs, the balance sale consideration was paid by late Shri Raminder Singh Sidhu through EMIs of Rs.1,29,167.00 by way of postdated cheques, all duly encashed by the OPs. In terms of Clause 4(a) of the agreement dtd. 14/9/2007, the possession of the Flat was to be delivered by the end of 2009. As per Clause 4(b), the OPs were obligated to issue a notice specifying the possession delivery date, which they failed to fulfill. Meanwhile, Shri Raminder Singh Sidhu passed away in London on 22/2/2010. He designated his wife, Smt. Harminder Kaur Sidhu as his nominee. In April 2010, during the initial stages of construction, the Complainant visited India and submitted a request on 15/4/2010, supported by an affidavit, to substitute her name in the buyer's agreement. The OPs executed a supplementary Buyer's Agreement dtd. 15/4/2010 substituting the Complainant's name. His visits to the construction site during 2010 and 2011 revealed limited progress. Regular inquiries about the construction continued, and in February 2015, the Complainant was assured by OPs, that the Flat would be ready in March 2015. Upon arriving on 28/3/2015, the Complainant faced demand for an additional Rs.5,26,300.00, which she contested as not being part of the original agreement. The OPs insisted on this payment for initiating registration and on 2/4/2015, a detailed breakdown of additional charges of Rs.3,44,000.00 was provided.