Sham Sunder, J. (President) -
(1.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession, who is doing his own practice. The opposite parties, are promoters and developers of Techno Knowledge Park project, for Fashion Technology, situated at Sector 90, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, Punjab, under the name Design and Insignia of Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park. In the month of April 2010, the opposite parties floated a small investor scheme, regarding the allotment of design studios, in the aforesaid project. In the advertisement, the opposite parties stated that the project would operate from 1.9.2010. The complainant was allured by such advertisement, and, submitted an application dated 9.5.2010, and Rs. 1 lac, through cheque No. 572613 dated 9.5.2010, drawn on UCO Bank, New Delhi, to the Opposite Parties, for buying a design studio, in their project, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by way of self -employment. The opposite parties acknowledged the payment, and issued receipt No. 3001 dated 9.5.2010. Thereafter, the opposite parties allotted Design Studio No. 38, measuring 335 square feet, 6th floor, in "Design Pavilion II". Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, was executed, between the complainant, and opposite party No. 1. According to Clause (1) of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, the price of the unit was fixed @ Rs. 22,11,670. However the Opposite Parties had offered discount to the complainant, if the payment was made in lump sum. Hence, the amount of Rs. 19,68,386, was finally settled, between the parties, after the discount. It was stated that the balance amount, after deducting booking amount, aforesaid, came to be Rs. 18,68,386, which was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, through cheque No. 572614 dated 20.5.2010, drawn on UCO Bank, New Delhi. According to Clause 15 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, the date of completion of construction of the said design studio was 1.9.2010. It was further mentioned in the said Clause that if the developer failed to hand over possession of the said studio, by the due date, it shall be liable to pay the buyer, the damage charges @ Rs. 50 per square feet, per month. It was further stated that till the date of filing the complaint, possession of the unit, in question, was not delivered, as construction of the same was not complete. It was further stated that, thus, the Opposite Parties were liable to pay damage charges @ Rs. 50 per square feet, per month, from 1.9.2010, onwards.
(2.) IT was further stated that according to Clause 25 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, if the buyer wanted to run his own business, in the said unit, he would be entitled to rental income @ 12% per annum, on the amount deposited by him (buyer). However, if the buyer wanted to sell unit back to the Company, after the expiry of 36 months, then he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 33,17,505 minus ( -) the payable amount to the buyer, in 36 months. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties failed to abide by their commitment. It was further stated that opposite party No. 1 also got executed the lease deed dated 21.6.2010, between the complainant and opposite party No. 2. It was further stated that rental amount, came to Rs. 25,803, per month, and the same was evident from copy of the cheque dated 16.10.2010, issued by opposite party No. 1. It was further stated that Opposite Party No. 1 partially complied with the said Clause No. 25 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, by making payment of the rental income to the tune of Rs. 25,803 per month, to the complainant from July 2010 to September 2010, through cheques. It was further stated that except for one cheque, in question, all other cheques issued by opposite party No. 1, issued in his favour, were returned unpaid, for want of sufficient funds. It was further stated that Rs. 9,28,908, was over due to the complainant, from 1.10.2010 to 30.9.2013, on account of monthly rent. It was further stated that the complainant requested the opposite parties to hand over possession of the unit, in question, to him, but they failed to do so. Letters were also written to the opposite parties, for delivery of possession of the said unit, and compliance of other terms and conditions of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3, but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant got served legal notice dated 17.9.2013, on the opposite parties, vide which he exercised the option, to sell the Design Studio to the opposite parties, but they did not send any reply to the same. It was further stated that by not making payment of the buy back option, exercised by the complainant, as also the rental and damages @ Rs. 50 per square feet, per month, the opposite parties were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 33,17,505, on account of the buy back offer, as per Clause 25 of the Buyer Developer Agreement dated 16.5.2010 Annexure -3; Rs. 9,28,908, as assured rental @ Rs. 25,803, per month, from 1.10.2010 to 30.9.2013, along with interest @ 24% p.a.; Rs. 6,19,750 from 1.9.2010 to 30.9.2013, on account of damages @ Rs. 50 per square feet, per month; compensation, to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 15,000.
(3.) THE Opposite Parties were duly served, but none put in appearance, on their behalf, as a result thereof, they were proceeded against ex parte, by this Commission, on 17.12.2013.;