Jasbir Singh (Retd.), President

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two consumer complaints. Arguments were heard in common, in the said cases, as the issues involved therein, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same. In both the complaints, the complainants have sought refund of the amount paid towards their respective unit/plot, alongwith interest, compensation etc. At the time of arguments, on 01.08.2018, it was agreed between the contesting parties, that, in view of above, both the complaints can be disposed of, by passing a consolidated order.

Under above circumstances, to dictate order, facts are being taken from consumer complaint bearing no.610 of 2017 titled as Sh.Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited and ors. It is the case of the complainant that through various advertisements in newspapers and also brochures issued by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and also through performa opposite parties no.4 and 5, he came to know about a project launched by them i.e. Emerging Valley, Landran-Banur Road, Mohali. It was projected that the project will be equipped with lavish facilities and amenities. It was assured by representatives of the Company that development work at the project will be completed within three years, from the date of booking of a plot therein. The complainant submitted application on 12.05.2014, towards booking of a plot, in the said project. He opted for time linked payment plan, copy of which is placed at page 22 of the paper book. Total price of the plot was fixed at Rs.23.25 lacs. Provisional allotment in respect of a plot, measuring 150 square yards was issued vide letter dated 16.06.2014 Annexure C-2. Terms and conditions of allotment letter were attached with the said letter and as per Clause (N) thereof, possession of the developed plot was to be delivered within a period of three years after the date of allotment. The complainant was also offered buyback option. It was stated that by 08.11.2014, the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.11,61,750/- to opposite parties no.1 to 3, in the following manner:-

Sr.No.Date Amount



29.05.2014465000.00



31.07.2014148750.00



13.08.2014200000.00



01.11.2014100000.00



08.11.2014248000.00

Total11,61,750/-



It was averred that despite the fact that the complainant had paid about 50% of the total sale consideration, in the manner, referred to above, development work at the site was negligible. Even plot no. was not allotted to the complainant. To his query raised, as to when possession of the plot will be delivered, no satisfactory reply was given. It was stated that the complainant made number of requests to opposite parties no.1 to 5 to apprise him regarding development work at the project site, but, to the contrary, they insisted him to make further payments towards price of the plot, in question. Legal notice, in the matter, had also been served upon the opposite parties, on 17.06.2017, but to of no avail. It was further stated that, in response to legal notice served upon the opposite parties, the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)/Performa opposite party no.6 i.e. the Competent Authority, vide letter dated 11.08.2017 Annexure C-6, intimated Sh.Satnam, Singh, Advocate, Counsel for the complainant that the Company had applied to get licence to develop a colony. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued. Because the promoter failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it. It was averred that the complainant visited the office of opposite parties no.1 to 5 but failed to get any positive response, qua delivery of possession of the plot. Various meetings were held between opposite parties no.1 to 5 and the complainant but to no avail. Hence this complaint.

2. Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of opposite parties no.4 and 5, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 04.10.2017 and 14.11.2017, respectively.

3. In the reply filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3, it was stated that the complainant is a speculator; he has purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits, after selling the same in open market. He is the owner of a house, address whereof has been mentioned in headnote of this complaint. It was pleaded that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. It was alleged that rate of interest claimed is on the higher side and that the complainant would not fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further pleaded that opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been wrongly impleaded as parties to the complaint, in their personal capacity. The complaint has been filed with malafide intentions just on surmises and conjectures, which needs to be dismissed. It was pleaded that Registered Office of opposite parties no.1 to 3 has not been made a party to the complaint. It was further pleaded that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited, as necessary party to this complaint. It was stated that verification made in the complaint is defective.

4. Purchase of plot, in question, by the complainant is admitted. Payment of Rs.11,61,750/- made by him, towards price of the said plot was not disputed. It was also admitted that the complainant was offered buyback option of the plot, at the time of booking thereof. It was stated that the complainant was issued provisional allotment letter on 16.06.2014. Possession of the plot was to be delivered within three years, from the date of allotment, as such, no cause of action has arisen to the complainant, to file this compliant. To the averments made in the complaint that no licence to develop colony was issued in favour of opposite party no.1, specific reply was not filed by opposite parties no.1 to 3. It was only said that the information related to this, given by the GMADA, did not pertain to the case of the complainant. It was stated that all necessary sanctions are available with the Company for selling the project. To say so, sanction granting Change of Land Use (CLU) dated 04.07.2013 Annexure R-1 at pages 45 to 47 was placed on record. Other documents with regard to issuance of letter by opposite party no.6, regarding sewerage etc. were also placed on record. It was averred that plot in question is ready for possession. It was pleaded that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.11,61,750/- whereas, he has sought refund of Rs.24,91,450/-. He was defaulter in making payment towards price of the said plot, and this fact is evident from his own version that out of the total sale consideration, he has paid only about 50% i.e. Rs.11,61,750/-. Since the complainant failed to make the remaining amount, on account of financial constraints, and is seeking refund of the amount paid, as such, under these circumstances, consumer complaint is not maintainable and he is required to file Suit in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount paid. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.

5. In the reply filed by opposite party no.6, it was stated that it has no role to play, in the transaction/dispute, that took place between the complainant and opposite parties no.1 to 5. However, territorial jurisdiction of this Commission was challenged, by stating that office of opposite party no.6 is located at Mohali, Punjab. It was pleaded that opposite party no.6 has been unnecessary sued in the present complaint, by the complainant. It was stated that the Company/Emerging Valley Private Limited had applied to get licence to develop a colony. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued. Because the promoter failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it. It was further stated that opposite party no.6, being Competent Authority under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA), vide letter dated 17.07.2012, has also written to the S.S.P, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, to lodge an FIR against opposite party no.1. The remaining averments were denied being wrong. Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint against opposite party no.6.

6. In the rejoinder(s) filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of opposite parties no.1 to 3 and 6.

7. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases.

8. We have heard the contesting parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the cases, carefully.

9. First, we will deal with an objection raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the complainant is a speculator, and that he has purchased the plot, in question, for earning profits i.e. for resale, as and when there is escalation in the prices of real estate, therefore, he would not fall within the definition of consumer, as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the.

There is nothing, on record to show that the complainant is a property dealer and is indulged in sale and purchase of property, on regular basis. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence, in support of the objection raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, mere bald assertion to that effect, cannot be taken into consideration. In a case titled as Kavita Ahuja Vs. Shipra Estate Ltd. and Jai Krishna Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (1) CPJ 31 , by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that the buyer(s) of the residential unit(s), would be termed as consumer(s), unless it is proved that he or she had booked the same for commercial purpose. Similar view was reiterated by the National Commission, in DLF Universal Limited Vs Nirmala Devi Gupta, 2016 (2) CPJ 316. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the present case. The complainant, thus, falls within the definition of a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the.

The mere fact that the complainant is owner of some other house, does not debar him to buy another flat/plot in any other project, in India. In a case titled as Aashish Oberai Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited, Consumer Case No. 70 of 2015, decided on 14 Sep 2016, under similar circumstances, the National Commission negated the plea taken by the builder, while holding as under:-

In the case of the purchase of the houses which a builder undertakes to construct for the buyer, the purchase can be said to be for a commercial purpose where it is shown, by producing evidence, that the buyer is engaged in the business of a buying and selling of houses and or plots as a trading activity, with a view to make profits by sale of such houses or plots. A person cannot be said to have purchased a house for a commercial purpose only by proving that he owns or had purchased more than one houses or plots. In a given case, separate houses may be purchased by a person for the individual use of his family members. A person owning a house in a city A may also purchase a house in city B for the purpose of staying in that house during short visits to that city. A person may buy two or three houses if the requirement of his family cannot be met in one house.

Such an objection taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3 in their written reply, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

10. Now, we will deal with the objection, raised by the opposite parties no.1 to 3, that in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.

In the first instance, it is submitted here that, opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to convince this Commission, as to why, in the absence of execution of any Agreement, or any clause in Allotment Letter, in respect of sale of the plot, in question, such a plea has been raised. Even otherwise, it may be stated here that the issue, as to whether, in the face of existence of provision to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint, has already been dealt with, by this Commission, in a case titled as Sarbjit Singh Vs. Puma Realtors Private Limited, IV (2016) CPJ 126, while relying upon ratio of judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, titled as Fair Air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. N. K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385 , C.C.I Chambers Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003) 7 SCC 233 , Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pushpalaya Printers, I (2004) CPJ 22 (SC), and LIC of India and another Vs. Hira Lal, IV (2011) CPJ 4 (SC), and held that even in the face of existence of arbitration clause in an Agreement/Allotment Letter, to settle disputes between the parties through Arbitration, in terms of provisions of Section 8 (amended) of 1996 Act, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. Recently, the larger Bench of the National Commission in a case titled as Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr., Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015, vide order dated 13.07.2017, has held that an Arbitration Clause in the Agreements between the complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said findings, the builder filed Civil Appeal bearing No.23512-23513 of 2017 before the Honble Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2018.

In this view of the matter, objection raised by the opposite parties no.1 to 3 stands rejected.

11. Now coming to the objection taken by opposite party no.6 to the effect that this Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, as it (opposite party no.6) is located at Mohali, Punjab, it may be stated here that all the documents placed on record, in respect of the plot, in question, reveal that the same had been issued by the Company/Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd., from its Corporate Office at Chandigarh. Even as per Clause O of the allotment 16.06.2014, Annexure C-2, it was agreed to, between the complainant and the Company that All legal disputes shall be subject to the courts of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh only. Under these circumstances, it can very well be said that this Commission, at Chandigarh, has territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide this complaint, in view of Section 17 (2) (a) (b) and (c) of the. Objection taken in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12. Further objection was taken by Counsel for opposite party no.6 that it was unnecessarily sued in the present complaint, whereas no cause of action has accrued to the complainant, against it. It may be stated here that it is well settled law that a proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, but its presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute, though it need not be a party/person in favour of or against, whom the decree is to be made. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the Company/Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, did not possess any licence to develop the project, in question, whereas, on the other hand, it (Company/Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited) has strongly rebutted the said allegation. As such, under these circumstances, it can be said that the reply filed by opposite party no.6, which is the Controlling Authority of the Company/Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited, will hold clarification, as to whose version, whether of the complainant or of the Company, is correct; and effective decree could be passed, by this Commission. Under similar circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court of India in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported as (2010) 7 SCC 417 , held as under:-

"xxxxxxx The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party:

(a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If a `necessary party is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A proper party is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. .

13. It is not in dispute, that provisional letter in respect of initially allotted plot, measuring 150 square yards, was issued in favour of the complainant on 16.06.2014, Annexure C-2 and as per Clause N of terms and conditions attached with the said letter, a commitment was made to hand over possession of the plot, within a period of three years from the date of allotment (16.06.2014) i.e. upto 15.06.2017. This complaint was filed on 16.08.2017. However, as mentioned in earlier part of this order, even as on today, licence to develop the project, in question, is not available with opposite parties no.1 to 3. This fact is further apparent on record from the letter dated 11.08.2017 Annexure C-6, written by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)/Performa opposite party no.6 i.e. the competent Authority, sent to the complainant, in response to the legal notice serviced upon it. In the said letter Annexure C-6, it has been, in a very candid manner, intimated to Counsel for the complainant that the Company/Emerging Valley Private Limited had applied to get licence to develop a colony. Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued. Because the promoter failed to fulfill the conditions contained in the said LOI, licence was not issued to it. This fact has also been brought to the notice of this Commission, by GMADA/opposite party no.6, in para no.5 of its written reply, relevant contents of which are reproduced hereunder:-

.It is further pertinent to mention here that the licence to promoters are only issued as and when they comply with all the prescribed terms and conditions and since in this case Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd. failed to comply with the conditions of Letter of Intent, consequently, the License for establishing a colony has not been issued to it.

However, in their written reply, opposite parties no.1 to 3 have not stated even a single word on the above fact. Yet, by placing on record letter dated 04.07.2013, Annexure R-1 colly., issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning, PUDA, Punjab, an attempt has been made by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to show that permissions were available with the Company, to raise the said project. It is very pertinent to add here that perusal of contents of Clause 3 (vi) of the said letter Annexure R-1 colly., clearly say that the Company was liable to obtain licence under PAPRA-1995, before developing the project site. Number of other permissions were found mentioned in the said letter, which were to be obtained by the Company, before launching the project, in question. It was further made clear in the said letter that the permissions mentioned therein, should be obtained within a period of two years therefrom, failing which, permission for change of land use shall be deemed to have lapsed. Relevant part of the above letter reads thus:-

"3 (i) The permission for change of land use shall be valid for two years from the date of grant of such permission and should the permission be not availed for the purpose for which, it is granted within the aforesaid period, the permission shall be deemed to have lapsed.

(vi) Applicant shall develop the site after taking the licence under the PAPRA-1995 from the Competent Authority, Revenue/ownership details of the site shall also be got verified at that time from the Competent Authority.At the time of arguments also, Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 failed to show any valid licence to develop the project, in question. He only placed reliance on the documents, referred to above, attached with the said affidavit. Those documents came up for consideration in a similar case, titled as Jarnail Singh Vs. Emerging Valley Private Limited, complaint case no.37 of 2017, decided on 23.05.2017 and this Commission observed as under:-

Thereafter, during pendency of this complaint, the opposite party moved an application, to place on record some more documents Annexure R-4 to R-11, which was allowed on 06.04.2017, subject to payment of costs. Those documents are taken on record. Perusal of those documents indicate that when the project, in dispute, was launched, not even a single approval granted by the Competent Authorities, was available with the opposite party. Subject to many conditions, CLU was granted on 04.07.2013 and thereafter, in continuation to the said letter, another letter was issued on 23.09.2013 Annexure R-5. As per conditions imposed, before starting the development in the project, it was necessary for the opposite party to get licence, as per terms and conditions of The Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (PAPRA). NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) was to be obtained before start of development. Other permissions like environmental in terms of Notification dated 14.09.2006; NOC from the Forest Department etc., were also to be got issued. Document Annexure R-6 indicates that to make arrangements for treatment and disposal of sewerage, communication was sent by the GMADA, only on 20.11.2015. As per information supplied through document Annexure R-7, it was indicated that some land falling in the project was mutated, in the name of the opposite party, in the year 2015. Perusal of photographs placed on record Annexure R-11, also makes it very clear that within the project only, wherein an alternative unit was offered, the development/construction appears to be incomplete. The facts brought on record by the opposite party itself, make out a case in favour of the complainant. It is admitted in the written statement itself and also at the time of arguments by Counsel for the opposite party that in the project, when the unit was initially sold to the complainant in the year 2012, construction had not started at all.

Without discussing anything further, on the basis of this admission itself, it can safely be said that the opposite party was guilty of providing deficient service to the complainant and refund of the amount deposited, can be ordered accordingly.

Be that as it may, it is on record that there is nothing to show that any permission was available with the opposite party when project was sold in the year 2012. To launch the project, without getting necessary permissions/approvals, would amount to unfair trade practice. Similar view was expressed by the National Commission in a case titled as Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Kamer Chand and another, Revision-Petition No.765 of 2016, decided on 30.03.2016. In that case, it was held as under:-

We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the ld. counsel. While affirming the order passed by the District Forum and commenting and deprecating the conduct of the Opposite Parties in the complaint, in launching the project and selling the farmhouses, even without obtaining sanction/approval from the competent authority, the State Commission has observed as follows:-

If a marketing agency sells out a project, for which, no approvals/sanctions have been granted by the Govt. Authorities, the said agency has to face the music and consequences of duping the gullible buyers, of their hard-earned money. In the public notice, it has specifically been mentioned by the GMADA that respondent no.2 and appellant no.1 are the sister concern. It is also apparent on record that before appellant no.1 started marketing the project, not even an application has been filed by respondent no.2, to get approval/sanction from the competent authorities, to launch the project. The information supplied vide letter dated 26.08.2014, referred to above, clearly states that not even a single application qua granting sanction to the project, has been received and dealt with, by the Competent Authority. In connivance with each other, the appellants and respondent no.2 committed a criminal offence of cheating. As per established law, builder cannot sell its property, unless and until proper approvals/sanctions have been obtained by it, from the Competent Authorities. It appears from the reading of documents on record that instead of selling a unit in a project, respondent no.2 in a very arbitrary manner, sold its share in a joint land measuring approx. 3807 acres, bearing hadbast No.326, Khewat No.92, Khatauni no.254-352, at Village Mirzapur, District Mohali, Punjab. There is nothing on record that said land was ever partitioned.

6. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the State Commission.

The principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the present case. In view of above, it can safely be said that by adopting unfair trade practice, the project was sold/launched.

14. Sequence of facts narrated above, clearly goes to show that the project was sold by opposite parties no.1 to 3, without getting approvals/licence. Such an act would amount to unfair trade practice. It may be stated here that earlier also, against the same Company/(Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.), in Naveen Goel and another Vs. Emerging Valley Private Limited, consumer complaint bearing no.218 of 2015, decided by this Commission on 17.02.2016, it was held as a matter of fact that when the project was sold, even Change of Land Use (CLU) was not in the hands of the opposite party. Even Letter of Intent (LOI) was released thereafter. First Appeal bearing no.278 of 2016 filed against the order dated 17.02.2016, was dismissed, in limine, by the National Commission, vide order dated 18.04.2016.

In view of above, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him.

15. Now coming to the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, to the effect that the project is habitable and the plot is ready for possession, it may be stated here that not even a single convincing document has been placed on record, to prove the said fact. It is well settled law that the onus to prove that the project has been completed and the area/site, in question, is fully developed, is on the builder/opposite parties no.1 to 3. It was so said by the National Commission, in Emaar MGF Land Limited and another Vs. Krishan Chander Chandna, First Appeal No.873 of 2013 decided on 29.09.2014. In the present case, it is very strange that not even a single document has been placed on record, by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in respect of the plot, in question, to prove that they are actually ready for offer and delivery of possession thereof, to the allottees. In case, all the development activities had been undertaken at the project site, then it was for opposite parties no.1 to 3, which could be said to be in possession of the best evidence, to produce cogent and convincing documentary evidence, in the shape of the reports and affidavits of the Engineers/Architects, as they could be said to be the best persons, to testify, as to whether, all these development/construction activities, had been undertaken and completed at the site or not, but they failed to do so. At the same time, opposite parties no.1 to 3 were also required to produce on record, a copy of the occupation and partial/final Completion Certificates (if obtained), having been issued by the Competent Authorities, which could be said to be best evidence, to prove their case, but they miserably failed to do that also. Even at the time of arguments, no reply was given by Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3, when he was asked, as to where is the partial/completion certificate, in respect of the project, in question, if he claims that the project is fully developed and that the Company is ready to offer possession of the plot, in question, he was silent on this. The plea raised by opposite parties no.1 to 3, that they are ready with the plot to be delivered to the complainant, especially in the face of RTI information, referred to above, issued by the GMADA/opposite party no.6 and also further fortifying the same, in its written version, has no legs to stand and is accordingly rejected.It is a case of launching the project, in question, without obtaining necessary licenses/approvals from the Competent Authorities and selling residential units/plots therein, illegally, thereby usurping hard earned money of the innocent customers like the complainant, which act amounted to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. In no way, the complainant is liable to approach Civil Court for recovery of the amount paid by him, to the Company. Plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.

16. Before proceeding further, we want to say that we have noticed with concerned that many builders have launched projects in the past few years, without getting necessary approvals from the Competent Authorities, like GMADA etc. Some builders have also raised construction without getting necessary permissions. It is the bounden duty of the Competent Authorities to ensure that there is no violation of PAPRA and the Rules framed thereunder. Their field staff is supposed to be very vigilant and is required to intimate the Higher Authorities, qua any violation being committed, as and when it is found, as in the present case. If irregularities are established, immediately, penal action should be taken against the defaulter concerned. In the present case, it has been stated by the GMADA that vide letter dated 17.07.2012, they have asked S.S.P., SAS Nagar, to lodge a FIR against opposite party no.1, for its act and conduct, referred to above. However, there is nothing on record that except writing letter dated 17.07.2012, any follow-ups were made in the matter, with the Police. The Competent Authority cannot wash of its liability, merely by pushing a letter to the Police concerned to lodge FIR against the defaulter builder but on the other hand, should follow up the matter, to ensure that necessary penal action has been taken and the defaulter builder is not able to continue the wrong doings. As such, we direct the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to pursue the said matter and take further legal action, accordingly. Certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Officer of GMADA, also.

17. As far as objection regarding impleading of opposite parties no.2 and 3, in their personal capacity, in this consumer complaint, is concerned, we do not agree with the objection raised. It is not the case of the Company that the above-named persons are not their Directors. As such, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the Company. A similar controversy arose for determination before the Honble National Commission, in a case titled as M/s. India Bulls Real Estate & Wholesale Services Ltd. & Ors, Vs. Vemparala Srikant & Anr., First Appeal No. 797 of 2017, decided on 16 Aug 2017, wherein, it was held as under:-From the material on record, it is evident that the OP-2 is the Chairman of the Company whereas the OP-3 is the Chief Executive Officer-cum-M.D. of the said company. Evidently, these two persons are holding such important positions in the Company, where they are directly involved with the decision-making process in the company. By virtue of their office, they can directly influence any decision regarding relief to be granted to the complainant, as asked for in the consumer complaint. It is held, therefore, that the State Commission has rightly dismissed the interim application, rejecting the plea of the appellants to delete the name of OP-2 & OP-3 from the array of parties. The impugned order passed by the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the appeal is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

In view of above, objection raised by Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3 stands rejected.

18. As far as the objection regarding non-impleading of Registered Office in this consumer complaint is concerned, it may be stated here that there is ample evidence on record, which reveal that the complainant was dealing directly with Office of the Company/opposite party no.1, only at Chandigarh, address whereof is mentioned in the headnote of this complaint, of which, opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the Directors. Once, the payments in respect of the plot, in question, were made at the said office at Chandigarh; all the correspondence took place between the parties, with the said Office, as such, objection taken in this regard, being devoid of merit, stands rejected.At the same time, it is also held that, as stated above, since the complainant has booked the plot, in question, in the project named Emerging Valley Pvt. Limited; payments were also made to the said Company, as such, there was no need of impleading Emerging India Housing Corporation Limited, as necessary party to this complaint. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the complaint was bad for misjoinder/non-joinder of necessary parties.

19. It is to be further seen, as to whether, interest on the amount refunded, can be granted in favour of the complainant. It has been proved on record that an amount of Rs.11,61,750/- was paid by the complainant, without getting anything, in lieu thereof. The said amount has been used by opposite parties no.1 to 3, for their own benefit. They have provided nothing to the complainant till date. It has wrongly been said that the project is habitable, whereas, on the other hand, even licence to launch the project was not in possession of opposite parties no.1 to 3. It is well settled law that whenever money has been received by a party and when its refund is ordered, the right to get interest follows, as a matter of course. The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it, the said right. It was also so said by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, in UOI vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd (Supreme Court), (2014) 6 SCC 335 decided on March 20th, 2014 (2014) 6 SCC 335). In view of above, the complainant is certainly entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him, alongwith interest, from the respective dates of deposits till realization. However, since in the instant case, the complainant has made about 50% of amount out of the total sale consideration of plot, to opposite parties no.1 and 3; at the same time, only about two months have lapsed of the committed period by the time this complaint was filed; and also he was at fault, while making payment towards price of the said plot, as such, we are of the considered opinion that interest @9 % p.a. (simple), if granted on the amount deposited, will meet the ends of justice.

20. As far as objection with regard to verification of the complaint is concerned, it may be stated here that the complainant has filed affidavit alongwith the complaint, whereby the contents of the complaint, have been verified by him. Furthermore, though it is not necessary to get the said affidavit notarized, even then the complainant has got it notarized from the Oath Commissioner. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a beneficial legislation, to provide speedy, inexpensive and hassle free redressal to the grievance of the consumers. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, except the one, provided under Section 13(4) of the Act, and the Evidence Act are not applicable to the consumer disputes. The Consumer Foras are to evolve their own procedure, for adjudicating the consumer disputes, by resorting to the principles of natural justice, but are not required to enter into technicalities, with a view to deny the substantial justice to the parties. It was also so said by the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of V. Kishan Rao Vs, Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2641_ OF 2010, (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15084/2009), decided on March 8, 2010. Relevants contents of the said order reads thus:-

The Forum overruled the objection, and in our view rightly, that complaints before consumer are tried summarily and Evidence Act in terms does not apply. This Court held in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221 that provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable and the Fora under the are to follow principles of natural justice

In view of above, the plea taken by opposite parties no.1 to 3, in this regard, stands rejected.

21. In connected consumer complaint bearing no.594 of 2017, an objection was taken by the opposite party/Company, that the complaint filed is beyond limitation. It may be stated here that we have gone through record of the said complaint, which reveal that there is nothing, which shows that possession of the unit therein was offered to the complainant, at any point of time. At the time of arguments also, Counsel for the opposite party/Company was asked, as to within how much time, unit in a developed project could be made available, he was having no answer to the same. Since in this case, neither possession of the unit has been offered to the complainant, nor amount paid by him, has been refunded so far, as such, there is continuing cause of action, in his favour, in view of principle of law laid down, in Lata Construction & Ors. Vs. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr., II 2000 (1) CPC 269=AIR 1999 SC 380 and Meerut Development Authority Vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, IV (2012) CPJ 12 (SC). Under these circumstances, it is held that the complaint is not at all barred by time. The plea taken by the opposite party, in this case (594 of 2017), being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

22. In this complaint (594 of 2017), another frivolous objection was taken that the complainant had privity of contract with M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Pvt. Limited but he has wrongly impleaded M/s Emerging India Housing Pvt. Limited, as such, the complaint is liable on this score only. In the first instance, it may be stated here that, in number of cases decided earlier, this Commission has observed that the Company namely Emerging World, has floated number of Companies in the same area, under different names i.e. Emerging Valley Pvt. Ltd.; Emerging India Housing Pvt. Limited; Emerging India Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. etc., of which only Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu is the Managing Director. In number of cases, it has been proved that all the Companies are sister concern and their Officials have been issuing receipts against the payments made by the customer, as per their own choice, under different heads. This fact is further fortified from the record of the instant case because though, the opposite party is claiming that the complainant, in this case, has made payment to M/s Emerging India Housing Corporation Private Limited and not to M/s Emerging India Housing Private Limited, whereas, to the contrary, when we go through the contents of legal cum demand notice dated 23.10.2013 Annexure C-9 having been sent to the complainant by the opposite party, through Sh.J.S. Rattu, Advocate, who is defending this case, we find that it has been candidly mentioned therein that the said notice is being sent under the instructions of Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director of M/s Emerging India Housing Private Limited, Chandigarh. It was further mentioned in the said letter, that as per record maintained by the Company, the complainant had booked the flat, in dispute, in the said project (M/s Emerging India Housing Private Limited). If that is so, the opposite party failed to clarify to this Commission, as to why such objection has been taken, when in the contents of notice Annexure C-9, it is clearly admitted by them that the complainant had booked and purchased the said flat from Emerging India Housing Private Limited. As such, objection taken in this regard, stands rejected.

23. In this complaint (594 of 2017), another frivolous objection was taken that since the complainant has filed short affidavit, alongwith the complaint, as such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed, on this ground too. It may be stated here that we have gone through the said affidavit and found that the same has been filed as per the model specimen, given in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Objection taken in this regard, as such, stands rejected.

24. No other point, was urged, by the contesting parties.

25. For the reasons recorded above, both the complaints are partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:-

In consumer complaint bearing No.610 of 2017, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed as under:-

i. To refund the amount of Rs.11,61,750/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

ii. To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.

iv. Complaint against Performa opposite parties no.4 to 6 is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, opposite party no.6 is bound to comply with the directions given, in preceding part of this order.In consumer complaint bearing No.594 of 2017, the opposite party is directed as under:-

i.To refund the amount of Rs.6,12,750/- to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.

ii.To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.33,000/-, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainant, as also escalation in prices.

iii.To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.

26. The payment of awarded amounts, in the manner mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), in both the complaints, shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) thereafter shall carry penal interest @11% p.a., instead of @9%, from the date of default and interest @11 % p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii) also, from the date of filing respective complaints, till realization.

27. However, it is made clear that, if the complainant(s), in any of the above complaint, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said plot/flat, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainant(s).

28. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in connected file referred to above.

29. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.