BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.709 of 2014
Date of institution: 19.12.2014
Date of Decision: 23.04.2015
Lal Chand Goel son of Late Hans Raj, resident of House No.4122, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh through his duly authorized person namely Aditya Babbar son of Vasudev Babbar, resident of Flat No.302-F, Imerial Residency, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpur (adjoining Sector 20 Panchkula), NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab) through its Director Gopal Bansal.
2. Chinar Homes/Chinar City/Chinar World/Chinar Business Centre, Village Kishanpur (adjoining Sector 20, Panchkula) N.A.C. Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab) through its authorized signatory.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Shri Aditya Babbar, authorized person of the complainant in person.
Opposite Parties ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant Lal Chand has filed the present complaint through his authorized person Aditya Babbar under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the OPs to:
(a) refund him Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
(b) to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.
(c) to pay him Rs.30,000/- as costs of litigation.
The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that on the going through an advertisement, he visited the OPs and OP No.1 assured the complainant that the project would be starting within six months and completed within one year from the date of start. The complainant booked a unit and deposited cheque of Rs.2,60,000/- with the OPs as booking amount on 08.04.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-2. The OPs also issued letter of registration Ex.C-3 as Registration in Wonder Growth Plan 2. After expiry of six months the complainant contacted the OPs to know about the development in the project but the OPs started postponing on one pretext or the other. The complainant enquired on his own level and found that the OPs have no proof of land owned by them and have also not obtained the CLU from the Govt. before floating a colony/project. They have also not obtained any environmental clearance from the Environment Department. The complainant vide his letter dated 03.02.2014 requested the OPs for cancellation/surrender of the booked property and sought refund of the deposited amount which has not been refunded till date and this act of the OPs is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. After the admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs through registered post and as per the report retrieved from India post site, the notice was delivered to the OP on 05.01.2015. Despite proper and effective service, none appeared on behalf of the OP and thus was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2015.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.
4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OPs were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence.
5. We have heard authorized person of the complainant and gone through the written arguments filed by him.
6. As per the complainant he has paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the OPs towards purchase of a unit vide receipt dated 08.04.2011 Ex.C-2. OP No.1 vide Ex.C-3 informed the complainant about the receipt of 10% registration fee for the plot of 200 sq. yards @ Rs.13,000/- per sq. yard and further informed the complainant that in case he wants to cancel the registration any time before the launch of the project, he would be refunded the registration amount plus additional interest of 24% per annum. Since the complainant enquired about the status of the project from the OPs and no favourable response regarding necessary sanctions or approvals for the project in favour of the OPs from the Govt. has been received by the complainant, therefore, the complainant vide Clause-4 of Ex.C-3 made a request for cancellation/surrender of booked property vide letter dated 03.02.2014 Ex.C-4. The said letter has been duly received and acknowledged by the OPs. Despite having received and acknowledging the said letter, even after a lapse of one year, the complainant has not received back his booked money and, therefore, finding no alternative moved the present complaint before this Forum on 30.01.2015. The act of the OPs in not refunding the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- initially deposited vide receipt Ex.C-2 dated 08.04.2011 alongwith promised interest of 24% per annum vide clause-4 Ex.C-3 is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
7. Ample opportunities have been granted to the OPs for appearance before this Forum to rebut the pleadings and evidence of the complainant but the OPs deliberately omitted the proceedings and therefore, were proceeded against exparte. Thus the absence of the OPs is nothing but an admission from their side, as has been held, by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in K.D. Ajay Khosh Vs. M/s. Alliance Habitat, CLT 2013 (2) 389.
8. The evidence produced by the complainant i.e. Ex.C-2 the receipt goes to show the deposit of Rs.2,60,000/- as booking money. Ex.C-3 i.e. letter dated 04.08.2011 by the OPs to the complainant gives the right to the complainant to seek refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum upon cancellation of registration of the plot and Ex.C-4 the invocation of the right by the complainant for seeking refund alongwith interest clearly proves the complaint of the complainant that despite having followed the proper procedure as per agreed terms between the parties, the OPs have failed to fulfill their part under Ex.C-3. This clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has successfully proved that he suffered loss and injury on account of non refund of the money alongwith interest as there is depletion in the value of money otherwise have the OPs fulfilled their obligation under clause-4 of Ex.C-3 he would have been benefitted. The OPs have utilized his amount for the last more than 5 years and have been benefitted from his capital and, therefore, he has been put to financial loss and injury. Under the circumstances, the complainant has been successful in demonstrating and proving the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
9. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) refund to the complainant Rs.2,60,000/- (Rs. Two lac sixty thousand only) with agreed interest thereon @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment.
(b) pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) towards mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 23, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
