Haryana

Sonipat

21/2014

MRS. SUNITA MANN W/O SATYAWAN MANN - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RANGOLI PROJECT PVT. LTD.,2. SANJAY GHAMBIR,3. D.D. CITY TOWNSHIP,4. ROYAL CITY,5. KRISHNA MURLI - Opp.Party(s)

SATYAWAN MANN

19 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.21 of 2014

                                Instituted on:15.01.2014

                                Date of order:11.06.2015

 

Mrs. Sunita Mann wife of Shri Satyawan Mann, resident of H.No.1755/31, Vakil Lane, Shastri Colony, Gohana road, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.Rangoli Project Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office, DD house, F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.

2.Director Sanjay Ghambir, resident of H.No.N-56, Panchsheet Park, New Delhi-110017.

3.Director of DD City/DD Township Ltd. through its Director Sanjay Ghambir.

4.Royal City/Rangoli Project Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, 111, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase III, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.

5.M/s Krishan Murari Infrastructures and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office 5, Pusa road, Ist Floor, New Delhi-110060.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. K.K. Malik Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Vinay Chhikara, Adv. for respondents no.1 and 2.

           (DEFENCE STRUCK OFF VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2015)

           Respondents no.3 to 5 ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that  at the rate of Rs.4400/-, the complainant had applied for the plot measuring 250 Sq. yards i.e. 209.3 sq. meter  in the township of the respondents and deposited the huge amount from time to time i.e. Rs.5,08,000/-.  The complainant has made 50% amount of the total cost of the plot and the complainant has requested the respondents no.1 to 3 many times to allot the plot and to receive the balance amount and to hand over the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, defence of the respondents no.1 and 2 was struck off vide order dated 3.3.2015.  The respondents no.3 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that at the rate of Rs.4400/-, the complainant had applied for the plot measuring 250 Sq. yards i.e. 209.3 sq. meter  in the township of the respondents and deposited the huge amount from time to time i.e. Rs.5,08,000/-.  The complainant has made 50% amount of the total cost of the plot and the complainant has requested the respondents no.1 to 3 many times to allot the plot and to receive the balance amount and to hand over the actual physical possession of the plot to the complainant but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, the respondents no.3 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte.  Whereas ample opportunities were afforded to the respondents no.1 and 2 to file the reply.  But despite availing opportunities, the respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to file the reply.  So, there is nothing on the file from the side of the respondents which may go to rebut the pleadings of the complainant. Accordingly,  in the absence of the material from the side of the respondents, we have no hesitation to accept the present complaint. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the deposited amount to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony and under the head of litigation expenses.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.06.2015