Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 220.
Instituted on : 21.05.2018.
Decided on : 21.05.2019
Mrs. Sneh Lata Jain(age 67 years) Daughter of Sh. Rati Ram Jain, Presently wife of Sh. Naveen Kumar resident of 1265/17, Railway Road, Rohtak-124001. M.No.9215635700.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- JOP International Limited 45/77 Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi-110026 through its Authorised signatory.
- Bharat Aggarwal, Director, JOP International Limited 45/77 Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi-110026.
- Shyam Aggarwal, Director, JOP International Limited 45/77 Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi-110026.
- Urvi Aggarwal, Director, JOP International Limited 45/77 Punjabi Bagh(W), New Delhi-110026.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ravinder Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gaurav Bhayana, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had got transferred a flat in JOP Palms Rohtak in the month of December 2012 after payment of Rs.400000/- plus premium amount to its original allottee. Thereafter the payment and receipt were endorsed by opposite parties in the name of complainant vide endorsement no.JOP PALMS/260. That non-construction of any kind was carried by opposite parties even after more than one year on the site as per the promises made, so complainant decided to drop the idea of making any further payment to opposite parties towards the cost of flat. That in the month of May 2014 complainant requested to opposite parties to refund the registration amount of Rs.400000/- That in the month of June 2014, opposite parties written a letter to complainant intimating her to cancel the booking after deducting 5% of total BSP of Rs.3431000/- out of Rs.400000/- paid as registration amount. That opposite parties did not refund the full amount of registration, or even amount as intimated by the opposite parties to be refunded in the letter sent to complainant. That in the month of November 2014, opposite parties sent a letter to complainant asking her to submit certain documents and alongwith their letter opposite parties sent a copy of cheque worth Rs.228450/- but complainant could not deposit the documents because due to reshuffling of her house, original receipts misplaced somewhere. That complainant got prepared the indemnity bond and completed all other formalities and submitted in the office of opposite parties in the month of June 2016 and the opposite parties assured the complainant that she will receive the new cheque within next six months as the validity of old cheque has been expired but despite her repeated requests, no cheque was issued to the complainant. That complainant also found the original documents and she contacted the opposite parties in July 2017 for refund of amount on the basis of original documents but any heed was not paid to her requests. That opposite parties refused to pay the alleged amount on false allegations. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.228450/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Thereafter an application for amendment in prayer para of the complaint was filed by the complainant alongwith affidavit which was allowed and amended complaint was filed by the complainant and as per the amended complaint, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.400000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief para of amended complaint.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that complainant on her own made an independent deal with the previous person and only on her request the company endorsed and transferred the original registration into her name in December 2012. That several letters/reminders were sent to the complainant including letter dated 03.06.2014 for deposit of remaining pending dues of Rs.1017543/- upto 18.06.2014. That on 30.06.2014 complainant requested the opposite parties for waive of forfeiture of 10% payment of Rs.400000/- and refund the entire amount. That only on humanitarian grounds, company offered 5% One Time Rebate in the forfeiture and sent her final cancellation notice. That company again sent her reminder of cancellation alongwith 5% refund cheque for Rs.228450/- but till date she never approached to complete the formalities of the refund of 5% and now the company has already forfeited her 10% registration amount as per applicable terms and conditions. That complaint is badly time barred as the complainant has approached the company only on 17.04.2018 via legal notice after November, 2014. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R7 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties we have observed that complainant had got transferred a flat in JOP Palms Rohtak in the month of December 2012 after payment of Rs.400000/- plus premium amount to its original allottee. Thereafter the payment and receipt were endorsed by opposite parties in the name of complainant vide endorsement no.JOP PALMS/260. But due to non-construction of any kind by opposite parties on the site, complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the registration amount of Rs.400000/- and opposite parties agreed to cancel the booking and to refund the booking amount after deducting the cancellation charges. Opposite parties cancelled the booking vide letter Ex.R5 and issued a cheque amounting to Rs.228450/- vide letter Ex.C6, which was not got encashed by the complainant. Opposite parties further assured the complainant that she will receive the cheque of refund amount within next six months as the validity of old cheque has been expired but after waiting for a long time, no amount was refunded by the opposite parties. So the act of opposite parties itself is not only a grave deficiency in service, such deficiencies or omission tantamounts to unfair trade practice and opposite parties are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation. However, ld. counsel for the opposite parties have placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid-down in FA No.420 of 2010(NC), decided on 30.01.2018 titled as Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Satinder Pal Singh, R.P.No.3113 and 3952 of 2006(NC) titled as Himachal Futuristic Communications Ltd. Vs. K.C.Aggarwal & Ors. and CC No.355 of 2014 decided on 09.03.2016 by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled Perin Bazun Dittia and Ors. Vs. Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. but the same are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant on the point of Limitation and Pecuniary Jurisdiction in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass in Civil Appeal No.3883 of 2007(SC) and Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CC No.97 of 2016(NC) are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lacs only) which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
