Haryana

Sonipat

CC/180/2015

Ranjit Kaur W/o Shri Bukram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ranbir Singh

04 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.180 of 2015

                                Instituted on:01.06.2015

                                Date of order:04.05.2016

 

Ranjit Kaur wife of Sh. Bikram Singh resident of village Balian, tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab, through General Power of Attorney Bikram Singh son of late Sh. Gurdayal Singh, resident of village village Balian, tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab.

                                           ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure Ltd., Registered office B-160, Sector 1, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 through its Managing Director.

2. RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure Ltd., Corporate office, 306, Roman Court, Sushant City, Kundli,distt. Sonepat through its Corporate Manager.

                                            ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ranbir Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 given-up on 12.04.2016.

           Respondent no.2 ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2016.

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she was registered by the respondent no.2  for the purchase of a plot and registration no.CDP-001-00002523 dated 30.6.2011 was allotted to the complainant and registration certificate serial no.17298 was issued to the complainant and the complainant has paid Rs.one lac for the said purpose.  The complainant was assured by the respondents that on the expiry of the said registration on 30.6.2014, the complainant would be refunded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in  case the complainant intend not to purchase the plot in question. As per terms, the said registration expired on 30.6.2014 and the complainant did not intend to purchase the said plot and the complainant requested the respondents to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant vide her application dated 30.6.2014 and she has surrendered the said registration certificate.  But despite letter dated 26.11.2014 and legal notice, the respondents have failed to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and this wrongful act of the respondents have also caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, respondent no.1 was given-up by the ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on 12.4.2016.  Similarly, the respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2016 when none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite due service effected upon respondent no.2 by the process server of this Forum.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments of the ld. Counsel for the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.1 lac to the respondents  for the purchase of a plot and registration certificate no.17298 was issued to the complainant which was valid upto 30.6.2014 and it was assured by the respondents that on the expiry of the said registration, the complainant would be refunded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in case she intended not to purchase the plot in question.  So, as per terms of the registration certificate which was expired on 30.6.2014, the complainant did not intended to purchase the plot and requested the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to C9.  Ex.C8 is the Memorandum and Articles of Association of RDPL Landmark and Infrastructure Ltd. and Ex.C9 is the memorandum and articles of association of Umeed Co-op. Producer Co. Ltd.

         In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondents to come present before this Forum and to defend the present complaint by filing their reply and affidavit.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that this opportunity has not been grabbed by the respondents since they have chosen to proceed themselves ex-parte.  So, in our view, the respondents to some extent has admitted the contents of the complaint and they have nothing to say in the matter of the complainant.  In the absence of anything from the side of the respondents, we have no other option except to accept the present complaint.  As per receipt serial no.17298, it is clear that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- with the respondents and its estimated realized value after the expiry of the term was Rs.1,50,000/-.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.

 

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to ld. Counsel for the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:04.05.2016