DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Consumer Complaint Case No: 540 of 2011]

--------------------------------

              Date of Institution : 24.11.2011

                   Date  of Decision   : 29.08.2012

--------------------------------

[1]  Bharat Inder Khullar son of Late Sh. Mahabir Khullar, House No 374, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.

[2]  Usha Rani wife of Sh. Bharat Inder Khullar, House No. 374, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh.

                                  ---Complainants

VERSUS

[1]  DD Merchant Bankers Limited, F-1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi – 110020.

[2]  DSP, Real Estate Pvt. Limited, SCO No. 3017-18, Sector 22, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA            PRESIDENT

         MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

         SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU     MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Bharat Inder Khullar, Complainant No. 1 in person and on behalf of Complainant No.2.

          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 ex-parte.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.      Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant applied for a plot of 250 sq. yards at Mohali vide application for provisional registration through Opposite Party No.2 by depositing a sum of Rs.5.25 lacs vide Cheque No. 702240, dated 24.01.2006 of Punjab National Bank, Sector 22, Chandigarh, favouring Opposite Party No.1 towards advance of provisional registration.

        The Complainant claims that the offer of allotment of Plot/ Unit in the proposed Scheme was to be made possibly within 8 months of registration failing which Complainant was entitled to a simple interest @9% on the amount deposited as per Condition(A) of the application form; whereas, the Condition (C) of the same document specifically mentions that in case the company defaults in making offer of allotment, of the plot/ unit, within a period of 12 months from the date of application, for any reasons whatsoever, the Complainant shall be entitled to refund of advance against provisional registration at the rate of 9% simple interest per annum, till the same is paid.

        The Complainant further claims that after having waited for years together, did not receive any allotment letter from the side of the Opposite Party No.1, thus, applied for cancellation of plot/ unit vide his registered letter dated 22.2.2010 and requested for the refund of the amount due towards him. A copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-B with the complaint. The Complainant claims that no reply of his letter dated 10.6.2010 was received. Copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure-C with the complaint. Thereafter, two different reminders dated 14.7.2010 and 12.11.2010, respectively, too, have fallen on deaf ears. Thus, aggrieved of the non-refund of money, contrary to the clauses of the Agreement, entered into by the Opposite Parties with the Complainant, the Complainant claiming deficiency in service on their part, has sought the following relief:-

 [a] Refund of Rs.5.25 lacs, along with up to date interest as per condition (C) of the application form, from the date of deposit, till it is paid;

        The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his detailed affidavit.

2.      As Opposite Parties being duly served have failed to put in their appearance, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.02.2012 and 01.08.2012 respectively.

3.      Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Complainants, the evidence tendered by the Complainants, we have come to the following conclusions.

4.      As the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 which were duly served but failed to put in appearance to contest the claim of the Complainants, as submitted through their present complaint, hence, the entire complaint of the Complainants goes unrebutted and the same deserves to be allowed. 

5.      We have perused the entire complaint as well as the documents annexed with it. It is noticed that the clauses (a) and (c) mentioned by the Complainant of the provisional registration application are very much valid and bind upon the Opposite Parties, who had themselves are the author of this document. We find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not refunding the amount of Rs.5.25 lacs along with interest as per the aforesaid clauses. 

6.      In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed qua them. Hence, the Opposite Parties are directed:-

[a]  To pay a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 24.01.2006, till it is actually paid;

7.      The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 6 above, from the date of deposit i.e. 24.01.2006, till it is paid.  

8.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th August, 2012

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER