Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/472/2023

AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJWA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

06 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/472/2023
Date of Institution	:	29.9.2023
Date of Decision	:	6/03/2024

 

Amit Kumar son of Sh. Des Raj, resident of 3165, Sector 56, Chandigarh

 

....Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Bajwa Developers Private Limited, through its Managing Director, # SCO 17- 18, Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140301.

 

2. J.S. Bajwa, Managing Director, Bajwa Developers Limited, # SCO 17-18, Sunny Enclave, Desumajra, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 140301.

3. Shri Baldev Singh Bajwa s/o Sh. Joga Singh Bajwa, Director, Bajwa Developers Ltd. Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali).

 

....Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY		Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.
		OPs already exparte

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 34 &  35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that initially the complainant had purchased plot No.1564  measuring 138.89 Sq. yds  in Sector 123, Prince City, Sunny Enclave, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali from the OPs  but as the said plot was under dispute, the complainant approached the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab  seeking certain relief against the Ops including the possession of the plot or refund of the paid amount alongwith compensation.  While disposing the said complaint the learned State Commission Punjab had directed the OPs to provide all the agreed facility to the plot in question  within 60 days of the receipt of certified copy of the order Annexure C-2.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs with the said copy of order  and at that time the OPs had agreed to relocate  the complainant by handing over possession of new plot  No.3207 (206.66 sq. yds), sector 124, Sunny Enclave (hereinafter to be referred as subject plot),  instead of the earlier plot No.1564. As the complainant was in dire need  of the subject plot, he left with no other alternative  but to accept the said offer of the OPs and accordingly  plot No. No.3207  was given to the complainant vide sale deed Annexure C-3 and no due certificate  Annexure
   C-4 and allotment/possession  letter Annexure C-5 were also handed over to the complainant. Due to COVID-19 the complainant could not start the construction work and after the lifting of restrictions  of pandemic, when the complainant visited  the office of Municipal Council Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali  for taking no objection certificate (NOC), it transpired that no construction can be raised on the subject plot as the same was under litigation and the municipal council Kharar refused to issue NOC  and at that time one letter Annexure C-6 was also handed over by the Municipal Council Kharar to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs and brought the said fact to the notice  of the OPs and requested for the refund of the deposited amount  but with no result. The complainant had deposited huge amount for the subject plot and requested the OPs to refund the same and the OPs  settled the matter and agreed to pay Rs.40,00,000/- out of which 5,00,000/- was transferred into the account of the complainant by the OPs and for the rest of the amount of Rs.35,00,000/-  the Ops issued cheques Annexure C-7 (colly) out of which some cheques were dishonored on presentation and as such the complainant did not present the remaining cheques as there was insufficient fund in the account of the OPs. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 30.11.2023.  Later on counsel for the OPs joined the proceedings by filing vakalatnama and written statement and written statement and evidence  was also received in the registry on 23.1.2024  though the OPs had already been proceeded exparte  on 30.11.2023,  Since the OPs has not got  the exparte order set aside from the appellant commission, the written statement of OPs cannot be taken for consideration  for the disposal of this complaint and as such the written statement and evidence filed subsequently by the OPs was ordered to be taken off  from the record vide order dated 12.2.2024.

2. In order to prove their case, complainant have tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the subject plot was given to the complainant by the OPs  in exchange of earlier plot No. plot No.1564   which was under litigation and further the Municipal Counsel Kharar has refused to issue NOC in favour of the plot holder on account of litigation between the OPs and other parties and thereafter the parties have entered into compromise and the OPs agreed to refund Rs.40,00,000/- towards full and final settlement in lieu of the subject plot out of which the OPs have already paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and regarding remaining amount of Rs.35,00,000/- the Ops had issue cheques, though the same were dishonored on presentation, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act OPs amounts to  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed and for that purpose the evidence on record is required to be scanned carefully.  
   2. It is an admitted case of the parties that the OPs had given the subject plot to the complainant in exchange of the earlier plot which was given to the complainant and the same was under litigation. Further it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid huge amount to the OPs towards the sale consideration of the subject plot and finally the OPs  settled the matter and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the complainant in lieu of the subject plot as the same was under litigation. Hence, it is proved on record that the complainant is consumer qua the OPs and it is also proved on record that out of the agreed amount of Rs.40,00,000/- the OPs had already paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant and issued cheques Annexure C-8 to C-21 for the remaining amount and out of which 5 cheques were dishonoured and the remaining cheques were not presented by the complainant before the bank making it clear that an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- has not been paid by the OPs to the complainant despite  of fact that they entered into compromise with the complainant. Thus the   aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refun ₹35,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 29.6.2023 when the  OPs issued cheque Annexure C-8 to the complainant  till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- 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.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 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 @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 6/03/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member