Argued By:    Sh. Sanjiv Gupta KKR, Counsel for the Complainant.

           Sh. Avinit Avasthi, Counsel for the Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant applied for allotment of a plot in “Hyde Park Estate” New Chandigarh (Mullanpur Planning Area), District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab and was allotted Plot No.HPE-R2-C604 by the Opposite Party, vide Allotment letter dated 31.3.2011. The said plot was allotted after receiving the payment of Rs.12.00 lacs from the Complainant, vide Cheque No. 001085 dated 21.3.2011. It is asserted that the Opposite Party has provided the bill payment plan, as per which, the payments were to be made by the Complainant. As per the said bill payment plan, the payment of Rs.15,10,065.88 was to be made by 31.5.2011. The Opposite Party vide its letter dated 8.6.2011 asked the Complainant to make the said payment by 17.6.2011. Thereafter, the Opposite Party vide its letter dated 23.6.2011 has asked the Complainant to make the payment of afore mentioned 2^nd installment i.e. Rs.15,10,065.88 by 6.7.2011. According to the Complainant, she was accommodated and the time for making the payment of installment was thus extended up to 6.7.2011. However, vide her request letter dated 5.7.2011, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to extend the time of payment after 6.7.2011, on medical grounds. It is alleged that on 18.7.2011, when the Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party for making the aforesaid payment, the Opposite Party became adamant in not accepting the same and rather insisted upon her to make the payment of said installment along with interest of Rs.29,787.60. The officials of the Opposite Party had advised the Complainant to represent the Opposite Party in writing thereby claiming the refund of interest charged. Accordingly, the Complainant under protest made the payment of Rs.15,39,900/- vide Cheque No. 015348 dated 18.7.2011 to the Opposite Party. The Complainant in pursuance to the advice of the officials of the Opposite Party made a request vide letter dated 18.8.2011 to refund the amount of interest charged by the Opposite Party, but astonishingly, the Opposite Party declined to refund the amount of interest charged vide its letter dated 1.11.2011. Hence, this complaint.       

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

3.          Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has denied that the answering Opposite Party, vide letter dated 23.6.2011, had sent the second reminder letter after the first reminder letter dated 8.6.2011, for the payment of the requisite amount of Rs.15,10,065.88, being the outstanding amount, which was due on 31.5.2011. It had been categorically stated vide this letter that delay in remittance were subject to the charge interest @15% p.a. for the first 90 days and thereafter 18% p.a. It was also made clear to the Complainant vide the said letter that the time is the essence of contract executed between the parties. Answering Opposite Party claims that it was wrongly alleged by the Complainant that she was accommodated for making the payment of the installment, whereas vide letter dated 23.6.2011 it was made clear to remit the payment without any reminder positively by 6.7.2010. It is pleaded that the Complainant has concealed the letter dated 9.7.2011 (which was reply to her letter dated 5.7.2011 seeking extension of time), whereby it has been specifically mentioned that as per the terms and conditions of the application form, duly filled by the Complainant, all payments has to be paid as per the schedule of payment on time. It was also stated that there is no provision for the extension of time line of the payment and the cancellation will apply on non-payment as per the policy. While admitting the payment Rs.15,39,900/- vide Cheque No. 015348 dated 18.7.2011, it is asserted that no extension of time was given to the Complainant and hence, the answering Opposite Party was not bound to refund the interest charged for the period i.e. 1.6.2011 to 6.7.2011. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.          The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

7.          The Complainant through her present complaint has raised the claim of refund of Rs.29,787/- which she had paid along with her payment of Rs.15,39,900/- vide Cheque No. 015348 dated 18.7.2011, against the outstanding amount of Rs.15,10,065.88/-. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the Opposite Party for having raised this amount.

8.          The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the Complainant has held its ground that it was well within its right to claim an interest on the delayed payment, which the Complainant was bound to pay as per the time schedule of payment, which she had promised as per the agreement entered into between her and the Opposite Party for purchase of the plot.

9.          The Opposite Party while leading evidence has brought on record the fact that the Complainant has already sold her plot to one Mrs. Abhilasha Joshi on 7.3.2012 and after having received the consideration amount from Mrs. Abhilasha Joshi, the Complainant had transferred her all rights in the said plot and on processing the request the Opposite Party through its letter dated 30.3.2012, confirmed the completion of the transfer in the name of Mrs. Abhilasha Joshi. The Opposite Party claim that after all her rights having seized to exist in the plot in question, she was barred to file any complaint as she is no more the consumer qua Opposite Party and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed, on this score alone.

10.        We have gone through all the documents tendered by the Complainant, as well as the Opposite Party and it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that on the day when the Complainant has filed the present complaint, she had already transferred her rights in the property in question much before six months of filing of the complaint and that there was no privity of contract between her and the Opposite Party on the day the present complaint was filed. Hence, she does not fall under the definition of consumer qua the Opposite Party and the present complaint deserves dismissal on this score.

11.        The Complainant though claims that she was compelled to part with an amount of Rs.29,787/- by the Opposite Party, but she had failed to bring on record any protest from her side at the time of making this payment, for us to believe that her cause of action to raise this issue, through the present complaint, was alive, on the day she filed the present complaint. There is also no proof on record from where we can adduce that even after having transferred her rights in the property in question, the Complainant still retained her right to raise this issue through the present complaint. 

12.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.      

13.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th November, 2013                                   Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

“Dutt”                                                                                                      MEMBER