GURBAX SINGH BAINS Vs PEARLS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIMITED & ANR

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 8.11.2013 passed by the learned Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, -the State Commission-) in Consumer Complaint No. 113/2013 - Gurbax Singh Bains Vs. Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. & Anr. by which, complaint was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant was allotted Plot No. 1025, Pearls City, Sector 104, Mohali measuring 320 sq. yds. @ Rs.14,500/- per sq. yd. by OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 and complainant paid Rs.6,96,000/- being 15% as earnest money. Complainant was told that possession of plot shall be delivered from the date of commencement of development and construction of the said township. Development work had been going on since July, 2006. It was further submitted that he paid Rs.4,64,000/- on 7.6.2010 being 10% of the cost of plot and provisional allotment letter was issued on 27.7.2010 and buyers agreement signed by OP No. 1 was received on 19.12.2010. It was further submitted that he made payment of Rs.44,47,326/-, i.e., 95% of the total sale price. OP asked complainant to take possession of plot after making 5% payment and also included external development charges, other charges to be levied by GMADA and town planning department. It was further submitted that water and electricity connections were not provided by OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 agreed to supply electricity and water from its own source and demanded Rs.1,07,865/- for this purpose. It was further submitted that OP also demanded Rs.1684/- as administrative charges and Rs.1,13,258/- as replacement/sinking fund and Rs.32,000/- as interest free maintenance security and Rs.39,326/- for club membership without any justification. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Learned State Commission after hearing complainant dismissed complaint at admission stage against which this appeal has been filed.

Heard appellant in person and learned Counsel for the respondents and perused record.

Appellant submitted that inspite of no development, OP wrongly asked complainant to take possession of the plot and pay unreasonable charges which were challenged before learned State Commission and learned State Commission instead of issuing notice to OPs committed mistake in dismissing complaint at admission stage; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission with direction to admit complaint and proceed in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that as there was no deficiency on the part of OP, learned State Commission rightly dismissed complaint at admission stage; hence, appeal be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that as no deficiency was pleaded against OP No. 2, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.

Perusal of statement of accounts annexed with letter dated 18.7.2012 reveals that complainant deposited Rs. 44,47,326/- against Rs.55,14,341,89. OP has charged membership fee of Rs.39,326/- and Rs.8,35,015.89 as interest. Clause 18 of flat buyers agreement provides that allottee may become member of the club on payment of club membership, registration charges and club development expenses. No document has been placed on record to prove that complainant obtained club membership. In such circumstances, at the admission stage, complaint could not have been dismissed as prima facie club membership charges were demanded without any justification. Complainant submitted that he made some payments in advance and wanted adjustment of accrued interest. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that OP never

demanded advance payment, so, there was no question of adjustment of interest due to delayed payment of instalments. This question also required consideration before State Commission and learned State Commission should not have dismissed complaint at admission stage. It is also not clear on what basis administrative charges Rs.16,854/- and general maintenance charges Rs. 1,32,800/- have been demanded from the complainant.

Complainant also submitted that without water line and electricity line, complainant was not required to take possession of the plot. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that OP has already applied which is clear from the letter dated 18.7.2012. This is also disputable point whether complainant was under an obligation to take possession of the plot without basic amenities and learned State Commission should not have dismissed complaint at admission stage on the ground that complainant was entitled to possession of plot only after payment of charges mentioned in the letter.

Simply by perusal of complaint it cannot be said that complaint is frivolous or vexatious and in such circumstances, it was not appropriate for learned State Commission to dismiss complaint at admission stage.

In the light of above discussion, impugned order is liable to set aside and matter is to be remanded back to the learned State Commission.

Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and order dated 8.11.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 113/2013 - Gurbax Singh Bains Vs. Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd. & Anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to admit complaint and to direct OPs to file written statements and to decide complaint in accordance with law.

Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 26.8.2015.