PRASHANT CHANDRA Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ('the Act') against the Order dtd. 17/2/2021 passed by the learned U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow ('the State Commission'), in CC No. 112 of 2014, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant. The State Commission has also dismissed the Review Application No.14/2021 vide order dtd. 16/7/2021.

(2.) For Convenience, the parties in the present Appeal are being referred as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. 'Prashant Chandra' is referred to the Complainant/Appellant whereas 'Jai Prakash Associates Limited and its Officials' are referred to as Respondents No.1 to 3/OP-1 to 4 and Mr. Ramesh Pawar is denoted as Respondent No.4/OP-5.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a property from Respondents No.1 to 3 (OP-1 to 4) for Rs.30,89,800.00 under a Provisional Allotment Letter dtd. 31/3/2010. The possession of the unit was promised within 30 months. Due to delay in the project, he decided to exit and negotiated the sale of the unit to Respondent No.4 and received an advance of Rs.5,00,000.00. The complainant filed an affidavit on 23/11/2011, stating the transfer of rights to Respondent No.4 and informed the proposed transfer to Respondent No.1 on 30/11/2011. His representative, Mr. Devashish Sahni, visited the site office to gather information on documentation for transfer and was made to sign various documents without the complainant's consent, resulting in unauthorized transfer of the unit to Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 failed to pay him the remaining balance and later demanded higher amount to retransfer the unit back. He sought to reverse the unauthorized transfer and cited a Supreme Court decision voiding transfers based on an unregistered power of attorney. Despite several communications and legal notices, OPs justified the transfer and failed to rectify records. His efforts to restore the ownership of the unit were met with repeated delays and demands for additional payments for issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs). He deposited Rs.75,000.00 for NOCs, but their delays caused the NOCs to expire without restoring the unit. He continued to make payments, including substantial amount of Rs.4,50,233.00 to avoid further interest penalties and paid Rs.27,74,346.00 covering 95% of the total cost of the unit. He faced financial strain, harassment, and incurred additional costs due to their actions. Being aggrieved, he filed a complaint under Ss. 12/17 of the Act, 1986 before the State Commission seeking compensation for the deficiency in service, loss, and harassment.