District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.76/2020.
Date of Institution:05.02.2020.
Date of Order: 06.02.2024.
Suranjan Sharma S/o Sh. N.M.Sharma, R/o House No. C-451, Indra Kalyan Vihar, Okhla, Phase-1, New Delhi – 110 020 mobile No. 9911719043.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. K & K Develop Build Pvt. Ltd. SCF-39, Sector-16A, Near Post Office, Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Narender Singh Chandila S/o Balram Singh Chandila, H.No. 10, Sector-21B, Vill, Fatehpur Chandila, Faridabad, Haryana – 122001.
3. Rahul Singla S/o Duwarka Nath Singla, H.No. 1443, Sector-3, Ballabgarh, Distt. FAridaba, Haryana – 121004.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 24.11.2021.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 5.1.2022.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte vide order dated 24.11.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had booked on 23.06.2022 a plot in the project of the opposite party land at village Yakutpr, Tehsil – Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar, Greater Noida (UP) bearing Khata No. 00006, plot NO. 77, measuring 50 sq. yds in a total sale consideration amount of Rs.91,000/- on monthly installment basis. The complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.29,500/- through cheque No. 289862 dated 23.06.2012 and also already paid Rs.500/- as a token amount to the complainant. Opposite party had executed a Bayana/Booking agreement dated 28.06.2012 between K & K Develop Build Pvt. Ltd. And Suranjan Sharma. The opposite party had admitted advance payment of Rs.30,000/- and disclosed installment details, they had fixed installment of @ Rs.5083/- per month for 12 months. The opposite party never provided terms and conditions i.e Buyer agreement. As per the discussion with the opposite party, he had paid all installment in time and the opposite party were agreed to provide the physical possession of the plot just after completion of installment. Following were the payment details paid to the opposite party were as under:
Date | Receipt No. | Cheque/cash | Amount |
30.12.20212 | 2759 | 289871 | 5083.00 |
30.12.2022 | 2751 | 889872 | 5083.00 |
23.06.2012 | 333 | 289962 | 29500.00+ 500.00 taken |
02.10.2012 | 1489 | 289868 | 5083.00 |
18.11.2012 29.10.2012 | 2044 | 289969 | 5083.00 |
27.07.2012 | 642 | 289964 | 5084.00 |
19.07.2013 | 6716 | 175882 | 10,168.00 |
17.03.2013 | 4366 | | 10,166.00 |
19.05.2013 | 5617 | 289880 | 10,166.00 |
26.08.2012 | 1038 | 289865 | 8054.00 |
| | Total | 91.000.00 |
After full and final payment, the complainant had visited several times at their office and met to Mr. Rahul Kumar who was executed the project and also met to Mr. Narender Singh Chandila and Rahul Singla whose presently running M/s. K & K Develop Built Pvt. Ltd. after the death of Mr. Inderjeet Singh who had signed the Bayana/Booking agreement for refund of his entire paid amount as they failed to provide the possession in given duration, but till date they did not return a single penny. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.91,000/- with 18% interest from the date of last payment .
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 received back with the report of “Refusal”. Case called several times since morning. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.11.2021.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 several times but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 as he was intentionally avoiding the service. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.01.2022.
4. Opposite party No. 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that It was submitted that the answering opposite party was working in M/s. K & K Develop Build Pvt. Ltd. and the said company prepared the relevant Bayana/Booking agreement with the customer and the answering opposite party had no concern and the complainant intentionally and knowingly made the party as answering opposite party No.3 with an intention to harass and humiliate to the answering opposite party No.3. It was submitted that if any dispute of the complainant then the company was responsible for the same and the answering opposite party was not liable to make any alleged amount to the complainant. Opposite party No. 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–K & K Develop Build Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) refund the deposited amount of Rs.91,000/- with 18% interest from the date of last payment . b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Suranjan Sharma, Annexure-1 – Acknowledgement,, Annexue-2 – Bayana/Booking Agreement, Annexue-3 to 12 – receipts,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Dharmender Arya, Assistant Manager, M/s. national Insurance Company Limited, National Legal Vertical, 2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension (2nd floor_, New Delhi, Ex..R-1/1 – insurance policy, Ex.R-1/2 – Discharge on request, Ex.R-1/3 – Final bill, Ex.R-1/4 – email.
As per evidence of opposite party No.3, Ex.RW!/A – affidavit of Rahul Singla son of Shri Duwarka Nath Singla, resident of House No. 1443, Sector-3, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.
8. Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, opposite party No.3 had been proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.05.2023.
9. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Opposite party No.3 was also intentionally avoiding the services. Hence, opposite party No.3 was also proceeded ex-parte. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
7. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 jointly & severally, are directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.91,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed
to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant. No litigation will be given to the complainant as the complainant himself is pursuing the complaint. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 06.02.2024 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
