TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. SHAKTI KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act') challenges the order dtd. 20/5/2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U T., Chandigarh in CC no. 66 of 2019 directing the appellants herein to refund the amount of Rs.34,58,000.00 with 12% interest from the date of deposit till realisation along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000.00 to the respondent.

(2.) The delay of 95 days in filing of this appeal is condoned in view of the extension of limitation period ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 dtd. 10/1/2022.

(3.) The relevant facts of the matter are that the respondent had booked a plot in appellant's housing project 'TDI City', Sector 110-111, Mohali, Punjab by way of advance registration form dtd. 31/5/2012. An allotment letter in respect of plot no. 1743, ad measuring 192 sq yds was issued by the appellants on 5/7/2012. The appellants submitted that since the plot allotted was fully developed, an offer of possession was made to the respondent on 7/8/2012 to take possession within ten days, failing which they would be liable to pay maintenance charges. A Plot Buyers Agreement (in short, 'the Agreement') was entered into on 8/8/2012. The respondents opted for Payment Plan 'A', requiring payment of 20% of the amount to be paid at the time of booking (which stood paid with advance registration on 31/5/2012), 70% within 30 days of booking and the final 10% at the time of handing over the possession. The respondents paid Rs.24,92,200.00 on 8/8/2012 and entered into a Maintenance Agreement dtd. 22/8/2012. The respondents/ complainants contend that the appellants were required to commence the construction of the house with due sanction of the Competent Authority within three years from the date of offer of possession which was not done. The appellants obtained a Partial Completion Certificate from the Competent Authority on 25/6/2015. It is contended that even after the expiry of the period of three years for the commencement of construction of the house on 7/8/2015, the appellants failed to commence the construction. By letter dtd. 18/12/2017, the appellants extended the time limit for construction to 31/3/2018 which was also not complied with. According to the appellants, the respondents filed a complaint before the State Commission to avoid the contractual obligations of the Agreement dtd. 8/8/2012 and the Maintenance Agreement dtd. 22/8/2012, despite taking over possession. It is contended that the complaint was barred by limitation since the last payment was made in August 2012 and there was no cause of action. The respondents were not 'consumers' under Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act, 1986 (Sec. 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019). It was contended that there was no deficiency in service which the State Commission failed to appreciate since possession had been offered with basic amenities. The conclusions of the State Commission that the plot was not developed was contested and denied. It was argued that the State Commission had erred in not appreciating that the appellants were exempted under PAPRA, 1995. The order of the State Commission was stated to also be erroneous in overlooking the fact that although the possession was offered, it had been held that no development had been done on the site even though partial Completion Certificate dtd. 25/6/2015 was available. It was contended that the respondents had willingly entered into a Maintenance Agreement on 22/8/2012 which indicated that they were satisfied with the amenities provided. It was submitted that even though it had been brought to the State Commission's knowledge that the possession has been offered on 7/8/2012, it rejected this averment on the ground that this letter had been brought on record only during the pendency of the complaint. It was also submitted that the State Commission failed to appreciate that vide letter dtd. 18/12/2017 it had been mentioned that the offer of possession had been made on 7/8/2012 and that this letter was part of the written statement filed by the appellants. It was contended that the State Commission erred in not considering that respondents' claim that the plot in question was required by the respondents as 'consumers' was a mere averment and submission which had not been established through evidence. It was contended that the plot had been booked for a commercial purpose. It was also contended that the impugned order had incorrectly recorded that there was no certainty regarding place, location and sanctions for the plot and it was based on conjectures and surmises in arbitrarily holding that there was no development in the project. It was also contended that the order was bad in law in directing refund of the entire amount with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.50,000.00 which amounted to premium to the respondent for their own fault. It was therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order and pass any other order (s) deemed fit in the interest of justice.