Haryana

Sonipat

CC/291/2014

HARI KISHAN S/O RAM SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. OMAXE CONSTRUCTION LTD.,2. BRANCH MANAGER OMAXE CONSTRUTCATION LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MANNU MALIK

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.291 of 2014

                                    Instituted on:04.11.2014

                                    Date of order:17.09.2015

 

Hari Kishan Jindal son of RamSingh Jindal, r/o H.No.47, Chardham Apartments, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-85 through his attorney Shri Rajesh son of Ram Swaroop, r/o H.No.517, W.No.2, Gharaunda Distt. Karnal.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1. Omaxe Construction Ltd. Omaxe House, 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 through its Managing Director/Chairman.
2. Branch Manager, Omaxe Construction Ltd., Omaxe City, GT road, Sonepat.

 

                                  …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. H.O. Sharma 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 applied with the respondents for the allotment of one flat area measuring 1000 sq. feet situated at Omaxe Heights of Omaxe City, GT road Sonepat and deposited Rs.3 lacs vide receipt no.29439 dated 13.9.2005.  The respondents allotted flat bearing flat ID No.SNF-872  and the complainant further deposited Rs.2,00,500/- with the respondent on 1.5.2006.   But till date, the respondents have failed to deliver the possession of the flat  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.        In reply the respondents have submitted that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,00,500/- with the respondents and thereafter he did not deposit even a single penny with the respondents.  The complainant has accepted the basic terms and conditions of the allotment for residential flat, but he failed to pay the installments in time.  The complainant was liable to pay interest free maintenance security and other dues and charges of the Govt. including EDC and IDC, but of no use.   The respondents have issued demand letters to the complainant on 7.12.2006, 14.12.2006, 10.2.2007, 30.7.2007, 5.9.2007, 12.10.2009, 11.1.2010, but the complainant has failed to pay the installments.  The respondent on 11.3.2010 issued a letter to the complainant and at that time, Rs.14,25,420/- was due towards the complainant.  Due to non payment of the installments, the respondent has cancelled the allotment of apartment no.505 and Rs.3 lacs paid by the complainant as booking amount were forfeited. The respondent issued a letter to the complainant on 21.6.2010 and asked him to collect the balance amount of Rs.2,00,500/- form the office of the company and the respondent has allotted the flat to some other person and has executed a deed of conveyance in favour of that person on 22.1.2015.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation 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 despite deposit of Rs.5,00,500/- with the respondents, till date, the respondents have failed to deliver the possession of the flat  and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         On the other hand, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondents that the complainant himself is liable for his own act and deeds as after deposit of Rs.5,00,500/-, the complainant did not pay even a single penny to the respondent despite various letters written to the complainant by the company and due to this, allotment of flat no.505 was cancelled and amount of Rs.3 lacs deposited as booking amount was forfeited. However, the complainant was asked to collect his balance amount of Rs.2,00,500/- from the office of the respondent. The respondent has allotted the flat to some other person and has executed a deed of conveyance in favour of that person on 22.1.2015.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

5.       After hearing both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. From the written statement and affidavit, it is gathered that the flat in question has been sold by the respondents to some other person on 15.09.2010 and they also executed a deed of conveyance in favour of new purchaser on 22.01.2015. There is nothing on record to show that before taking such an action by the respondents, they ever gave any personal hearing to the complainant.  On the other hand, the respondents are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant without providing him any services and in our view, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as they have failed to deliver the possession of the flat to the complainant.

         In the present complaint, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondents to accept the remaining amount of cost of flat ID NO.SNF-872  and to deliver the possession of the said flat to the complainant or in the alternative to refund the deposited amount of Rs.500500/- to the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

         In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,500/- (Rs.five lacs five hundred) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Rs.five thousand) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

        With these observations, findings and directions, 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 17.09.2015