Haryana

Sonipat

328/2014

SURENDER SINGH S/O OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,2. MANAGER ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE - Opp.Party(s)

SATYAWAN MANN

16 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.328 of 2014                                            Instituted on:02.12.2014                                             Date of order:16.03.2016

Surender Singh son of Om Parkash, r/o H.No.342, Sector 23, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

                          VERSUS

1.Ansal Prop. & Infrastructure Ltd.  115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-1.

2.Manager/Incharge Ansal Prop. & Infrastructure Ltd., VPO Rasoi, KUndli, Sonepat.

     ……..Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. KC Dalal Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for respondents.

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

O R D E R

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the complainant has deposited Rs.6,56,850/- in cash with the respondents on 9.4.2005 and shop no. UGB 124 Roman Court Sonepat was allotted to the complainant.   The total cost of the shop was Rs.18,34,644/-. The complainant has sent letter dated 28.12.2009 and 20.4.2010 regarding the payment of the shop but of no use and then on 1.12.2011 the complainant requested the respondents for refund of his money, but of no use and ultimately the complainant served the respondents with legal notice dated 20.10.2014 but the respondents did not pay any heed to the legal notice as well as to the genuine requests of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that many reminders, letters and demand notices were sent to the complainant from time to time requesting him to clear the outstanding dues but of no use and thus, the respondents were left with no other option but to cancel the allotment as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.  The respondents have proceeded according to the terms and conditions for allotment of unit and cancelled the allotment of the shop.  Only an amount of Rs.203850/- was deposited by the complainant for allotment of the shop vide cheque no.747484 dated 9.4.2005 and cheque no.919708 dated 9.4.2005 and receipts no.402791 and 402792 were issued to the complainant and except the above amount, no such amount was deposited by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.6,56,850/- in cash with the respondents on 9.4.2005 and shop no. UGB 124 Roman Court Sonepat was allotted to the complainant.   The total cost of the shop was Rs.18,34,644/-. The complainant has sent letter dated 28.12.2009 and 20.4.2010 regarding the payment of the shop but of no use and then on 1.12.2011 the complainant requested the respondents for refund of his money, but of no use and ultimately the complainant served the respondents with legal notice dated 20.10.2014 but the respondents did not pay any heed to the legal notice as well as to the genuine requests of the complainant.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that many reminders, letters and demand notices were sent to the complainant from time to time requesting him to clear the outstanding dues but of no use and thus, the respondents were left with no other option but to cancel the allotment as per the terms and conditions of the allotment.  The respondents have proceeded according to the terms and conditions for allotment of unit and cancelled the allotment of the shop.  Only an amount of Rs.203850/- was deposited by the complainant for allotment of the shop vide cheque no.747484 dated 9.4.2005 and cheque no.919708 dated 9.4.2005 and receipts no.402791 and 402792 were issued to the complainant and except the above amount, no such amount was deposited by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondents.

         In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he has deposited Rs.203850/- vide cheque and cash Rs.4,53,000/- i.e. total Rs.6,56,850/-.

         But as far as the amount of Rs.453000/- is concerned, the complainant has failed to produce any receipt regarding deposit of this amount with the respondents.  So, it is proved that the complainant has deposited only Rs.203850/- with the respondent on 12.4.2005.

         The respondents in support of their case has placed on record the copy of letter dated 21.12.2007, 26.6.2008,  14.6.2008,  28.12.2007 and 19.11.2007 as Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 respectively and on the upper portion of these letters, it is mentioned “By Hand/Courier/Registered”.  But the respondents have failed to produce any kind of postal receipt, courier receipt or any UPC Receipt to prove the receipt of these letters by the complainant.    So, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as they are utilizing the amount of Rs.203850/- of the complainant without providing any kind of services to the complainant and definitely the complainant is entitled to get the above said amount refunded from the respondents alongwith interest. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.203850/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e. 12.4.2005 till its realization and further to compensate him to the tune of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.twenty thousand) for rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Thus, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

Announced: 16.03.2016