Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/109/2021

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anup Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Danwar, Tanika Goyal & Vipul Sharma Adv.

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	109 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	07.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	23.02.2022

 

1. DLF HOMES PANCHKULA Pvt. Ltd., (Local Office) at DLF Valley, Bhagwanpura, Sector 3, Pinjore Kalka Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana, India through its Manager/Authorized Signatory/Officer-in-charge/Director Sales & Marketing.

2. Rajeev Singh, Additional Director, DLF Gateway Tower, Second Floor, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002 Haryana, India.

 ……Appellants/opposite parties

V e r s u s

 

Anup Singh S/o Sh.Harikesh Singh, R/o H.No.54A, First Floor, Sector-15A, Hisar, Haryana-125001.

…..Respondent/complainant

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-

                            

                             Sh.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh.Narender Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties-DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Limited (in short the appellants), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.266 of 2021 filed by the complainant/respondent (in short the respondent) was partly allowed and the appellants were directed as under:-

“.. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. to pay ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹40,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above..……”.

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant-Sh.Anup Singh that on 21.03.2012, he  booked a flat in the project named DLF Valley, Panchkula with the opposite parties-DLF and paid an amount sum of Rs.4,00,000/-, vide receipt Annexure C-1. Vide letter dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure C-2), he was allotted unit bearing no.No.F-3/5 Ground floor in the said project, total price where was fixed at Rs.87,21,850/-. The opposite parties completely failed to execute the Independent Flat Buyer’s agreement. Infact they miserably failed to deliver possession of the unit in question to the complainant. Rather they sent an email dated 17.07.2015, Annexure C-4 to the complainant stating that the construction of the unit and development at the project site has not started yet and that they will update him on any further developments on the same but that was never done. Resultantly, the complainant wrote a letter dated 15.09.2017, requesting the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,00,000/- aforesaid with uptodate interest but to no avail. Hence, he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission.
3.           The claim of the complainant was contested by the opposite parties by way of filing written reply wherein, while admitting the factual matrix of the case with regard to booking of the unit in question and making payment of Rs.4 lacs by the complainant;  numerous objections were taken to the effect that  the complainant has concealed material facts;  that in the face of existence of arbitration clause in the application form consumer complaint is not maintainable; that only civil court has power to adjudicate this matter; that the District Commission did not vest with territorial jurisdiction; that the complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer; that the complaint filed is beyond limitation; that the unit in question stood cancelled, as the complainant failed to make payment despite the fact that number of reminders were sent to him in the matter.
4.           In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those contained in written version of the opposite parties.
5.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commission after hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint in the manner stated above, against the appellants.
7.           Hence this appeal.        
8.           We have heard Counsel for the parties; gone through the material available on the record; and are of the considered opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9.           The only moot question which falls for consideration before this Commission is, as to whether, the complainant  is entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him to the appellants or not. It is not in dispute that on 21.03.2012, the respondent had booked a flat in the project of the appellants launched by them under the name and style DLF Valley, on making payment of Rs.4,00,000/-, vide receipt Annexure C-1. Resultantly, vide letter dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure C-2), he was allotted unit bearing no.F-3/5 Ground floor in the said project, total price where was fixed at Rs.87,21,850/-. There is nothing on record that thereafter, the opposite parties raised any further demand towards remaining price of the said unit or sent agreement for signatures of the respondent. However, it is coming out from the record that after a huge delay of more than 3 years, the appellants vide email dated 17.07.2015, Annexure C-4, informed the respondent that construction of the unit in question and development at the project site has not started yet and that they will update him on any further developments on the same. Relevant part of the said email is reproduce hereunder:-

“……..With reference to your property number DVF-F3/5F, construction has not yet started for the said property.

 

Please be rest assured we will keep you updated on any further development on the same.

 

Thanks and Regards

CRM

DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd….”

10.           There is nothing on record that thereafter any update was given by the appellants, to the respondent, in respect of his unit. When nothing was heard from the appellants for more than two years, thereafter, left with no alternative, the complainant wrote letter dated 15.09.2017, requesting the appellants to refund the entire amount of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by him, with up-to-date interest but it was not so done and thereafter, when after waiting for some time with a hope to get money, it was not refunded by the appellants, the respondent filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, out of which this appeal has arisen.
11.            It is very significant to mention here that the appellants in para no.6 to 10 of their written reply filed before the District Commission have fairly admitted that Block No.F, in which the unit in question was located was not even constructed by them at the project site. There is nothing on record that the respondent was ever offered relocation to some other unit, especially, when the appellants were in the knowledge that they are not going to build Block no.F in which the unit in question was  allotted to the respondent. Thus, from the bare perusal of contents of email dated 17.07.2015, Annexure C-4 and candid admission of the appellants in their written reply, to the effect that the Block in which the unit in question was allotted to the respondent was not constructed and the allottees excluding the respondent, were relocated to other possessionable units, in itself is sufficient to prove that the appellants made false representations, which were materially incorrect and were made in such a way that the respondent, to whom it was made, was entitled to rely upon it and he may act in reliance on it. The respondent was thereby involved in a disadvantageous contract with the appellants and suffered financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Representations/statements made at the time of booking of the unit in question, were believed to be true. All the facts established that from the very inception there was intent of the appellants to induce the respondent to enter into a contract by way of filling up of application form for allotment of the unit in question, which was not in existence.  Infact, the acts committed by the appellants are not only fraud but also amounts to misrepresentation of facts. Huge amount of Rs.4 lacs paid by the respondent was utilized by the appellants, without providing him anything. On the other hand, he was caused a lot of mental agony and harassment, as his hopes to have his own house were dashed to the ground.  Thus, this is a clear cut case of deficiency in providing service, negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants, which act needs to be deprecated.
12.           Furthermore, a bare perusal of findings given by the District Commission in the order impugned reveals that the other objections taken by the appellants in their written reply, with regard to jurisdiction; consumer status of the respondent; and on the point of arbitration and limitation have rightly been adjudicated and need no interference of this Commission. 
13.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission stands upheld.
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

23.02.2022

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg