Haryana

Sonipat

CC/100/2015

VINOD KUAMR S/O JAGDISH RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BIGJOS ESTATE LTD.,2. PROPRIETOR OF BIGJOS ESTATE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DHARMENDER MALIK

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

Complaint No.100 of 2015                        Instituted on:25.03.2015
                        Date of order:03.09.2015

Vinod Kumar Gupta son of Jagdish Rai, r/o Gali Gurudwara, Samlkha, distt. Panipat.

                                ..Complainant.

                Versus

1.BigJos Estate Ltd., L-1/1 South Extension, Park-II, New Delhi-110049.
2.Prop. of Bigjos Estate Ltd. near New Fruit and Agrl. Mandi, Ganaur, NH-1, Distt. Sonepat.
                                    ..Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF 
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

BEFORE-      NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.
PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.
D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Dharmender Malik, Adv. for complainant. 
           Respondents ex-parte.

O R D E R

1.        The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents alleging therein that on 23.12.2005 Rajiv Kumar Varshney booked a plot of 250 Sq. yards in Bigjos Estate, Ganaur and in the month of Feb/March/2007 the complainant has purchased that plot form Rajiv Kumar Varshney after the sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/-. After the completion of transfer process, the said plot was transferred in the name of the complainant by the respondents.  On the request of the respondents, the complainant again deposited Rs.2,60,000/- through cheque no.848105 dated 12.3.2007.  After waiting for a long time, the complainant visited the office of the respondent many times to enquire about the completion of the said project.  But the respondents intentionally avoided the request of the complainant and has failed to issue the possession letter or to hand over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.
2.        Notice to the respondents were issued through registered post.  But none appeared on behalf of the respondents and due to this, respondents were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.8.2015.
3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.
4.        In the present case, the main stand of the complainant is that the respondents are utilizing the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- of the complainant, but they have failed to issue the possession letter and they have also failed to hand over the physical possession of the plot in question to the complainant.
        The perusal of the case file shows that the respondent wrote a letter dated 1.9.2007 to the complainant and thereafter the complainant has served the respondent with legal notice dated 24.12.2014 through his counsel.  It is very sorry state of affairs that in between the period 1.9.2007 to 24.12.2014 there is no correspondence, telephonic calls or any other talk in between both the parties.  If the letter dated 1.9.2007 is considered, then the present complaint of the complaint becomes time barred as from 1.9.2007 it was incumbent upon the complainant to file the complaint within two years i.e. upto 1.9.2009.  The limitation period cannot be counted from the date of issuance of legal notice as legal notice can be issued to any party/person at any time.  In our view, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  It was the duty of the complainant himself to approach the respondents if they were not giving any response to the complainant.  We also failed to understand,  Why and What for the complainant was waiting for the last about six years.  In the present case, timely action was required, which the complainant has not availed. 
        No doubt, the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte.  But in our view, the onus heavily lies on the complainant on prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant cannot get the benefit if the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte. Accordingly, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.
        Copy of this order be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.
              File be consigned after due compliance.

(Prabha Wati)    (D.V.Rathi)             (Nagender Singh)           
Member,DCDRF,    Member, DCDRF,            President, DCDRF
Sonepat.        Sonepat.                Sonepat.

Announced 03.09.2015