DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 1088/2007
Ms. Manju Saraf,
W/o Mr. Manoj Kumar,
R/o 68-69, Aggarwal Colony,
D.N. College Road, Hissar,
Haryana. ……Complainant
Versus
Ms. Central Himalayan Land Development Co. Ltd.,
C-203, Defence Colony,
New Delhi – 110024.
Through its Managing Director
Also at: 3rd Floor, 2, Community Center,
East of Kailash, New Delhi – 110065. ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.11.2007 Date of Order : 01.02.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that she booked a Freehold Plot admeasuring 400 sq. yds in the OP’s project, namely, Cloud 9 Hill Town Scheme-2005 (Scheme Code CN/02/05) at Ramgarh, District Nainital, Uttaranchal and she paid Rs. 100/- as application form fee and also deposited Rs. 115600/- + Rs. 173400/- + Rs. 216750/- towards instalment and allotment money on various dates as detailed in the complaint. However, OP allotted a piece of agriculture land in Khet No. 75 and khata no. 02 situated at some village, namely, Khabrar which now revealed is far away i.e. approx. 10 to 12 km. away from the municipal area of Ramgarh and the OP also does not have clear title on the said piece of land. According to the complainant, the OP committed misrepresentation, negligence and unfair trade practice in such unauthorized change in the location and purported allotment of land without the OP’s having clear title at some unknown village, namely, Khabrar. Despite assurance given by the OP nothing came out. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to refund Rs. 7,59,250/- being amount deposited towards cost of Plot along with damages/interest @ 18% p.a. till payment thereof to the complainant, to pay Rs. 2 Lacs to the complainant towards compensation for extreme mental agony, harassment, loss of reputation and deprivation from fulfilling her cherished dream and Rs. 55,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In its written statement, OP has inter-alia pleaded that in the advertisement given in the print media and at the inner front cover page of brochure, it is stated that “Major Tourism destinations Ranikhet, Nainital, Kausani, Binsar located within 1-2 hrs driving distances” and that the site where allotment was made to the complainant is also a part of Ramgarh and the full address of the site is Village Khabrar, Ramgarh, Tehsil & Distt. Nainital, Revenue village Khabrar of Satbunga Patti. It is stated that it is the complainant who has defaulted in payment as detailed in the written statement and she is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. as per clause 15 of the terms enumerated overleaf the allotment letter till date. In Para 10 of the reply on merits, it is stated that Sh. Manoj Kumar Saraf, Husband of the complainant on behalf of the complainant along with Sh. Dharmendra Goyal had visited the site on 2.9.2006 and after their visit there has been no letter from complainant’s side showing her complaint and dissatisfaction about the location of the site, i.e., allotted plot. It is submitted that the complainant has questioned this only with the intention to escape from her legal liability to pay the entire defaulted payment to the OP along with interest and PLC charges. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, complainant while denying the averments made in the written statement has, however, in reply to Para 10 of the reply on merits of the written statement has submitted that the husband of the complainant had visited the site on 2.9.06 for the new scheme launched by the OP and offered that scheme to the existing customer of the OP vide letter dated 1st August, 2006, ref. No. CN/02/05/EO-AL/118. It is submitted that only after this visit of husband of the complainant, complainant had come to know about the misappropriation of the OP, as the new scheme site is merely the same as shown in the brochure of previous scheme.
The complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence and has relied on the documents CW1/A to CW1/12. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Deepak Baweja, AGM (Legal) has been filed on behalf of the OP. He has relied on the document Ex. OPW1/1. The complainant has not marked exhibit numbers on the documents as per the exhibit numbers given to them in her affidavit.
We now discuss the documents filed by the complainant.
Copy of the silent features of the scheme in question has been filed which we now mark as Mark A for the purposes of identification. It inter-alia prescribes the location of the site “Major Tourism destinations Ranikhet, Nainital, Kausani, Binsar located within 1-2 hrs driving distances”. Copy of the “Cloud 9 Hill Town Scheme – 2005 (Scheme Code CN/02/05)” has been filed in which some words have been tried to be erased with the help of some ink. This is also a part of document Mark A. The copy of Site Plan is filed on record which we now mark as Mark B for the purposes of identification. The site in question has been shown near Ramgarh. Copy of the application form submitted by the complainant is placed on the file which we now mark as Mark C for the purposes of identification. The same is in respect to the registration of the plot under scheme, “Cloud 9 Hill Town Scheme – 2005. The location of the site has not been mentioned in the scheme. However, copy of the letter dated 28.6.05 (CN/02/05/EO-AL/118) issued by the OP to the complainant has been filed on record which we now mark as Mark D for the purposes of identification. Some words have been tried to be erased in the said document but, however, we find that the complainant had been allotted a plot at Cloud 9 Village Khabrar. Copies of letters dated 19.1.06 and 20.2.2006 issued by the OP to the complainant have been filed on the record which we mark as Mark E and F respectively. In the said documents, the site of the location is shown as Cloud 9, Khabrar, Ramgarh, Distt. Nainital. Therefore, as per the document filed by the complainant herself, she was made aware about the exact location of the site where a plot of 400 sq. yds was going to be allotted to her. The Husband of the complainant and one Sh. Dhamendra Goyal had also visited the site on 2.9.06 but the complainant did not make any complaint to the OP regarding the site. Therefore, in our considered opinion, story as enacted by the complainant that the OP had committed misappropriation and unfair trade practice with her at any stage seems to be concocted one. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 01.02.16.
01.02.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
