Haryana

StateCommission

A/140/2018

M/S SRS REAL ESTATE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KUMAR CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY BHARTI

18 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No. :         140 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution:       23.01.2018

                                                Date of Decision          :         18.07.2018

 

1. M/s SRS Real Estate Ltd., SRS City (SRS Palm Houses), Sector-7, Tehsil and District Palwal through its authorised signatory Mr. Zakir Hussain.
2. M/s SRS Real Estate Ltd., SRS City (SRS Palm Houses), SRS Tower, Main Mathura Road, Sector-31, New Mewla Maharajpur Metro Station, Faridabad-1210001 through its authorised signatory Mr. Zakir Hussain

 

          …… Appellants

Versus

 

Kumar Chand son of Sh. Kishan Swaroop, resident of D-43, Moti Colony, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal-121102.

 

……. Respondent.

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Sanjay Bharti Gupta, counsel for the appellants.

                             None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Palwal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been accepted by the District Forum and following relief was granted to him:-

“So, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, this Forum have got no hesitation to hold the opposite parties liable for negligency by not rendering sufficient services and even not providing to the complainant, the allotment letter, payment plan and even the agreement was not entered into with the allottee, not to talk of other payment plan and starting of construction and handling over possession of the project to the complainant within the specific period. So, the opposite parties are indulging in unfair trade practices and misutilizing the hard earned money of not only this particular consumer but of other consumers also and by holding opposite parties as liable for negligency and causing mental agony and harassment direct them:-

1. To refund the booking amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. To pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
3. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5100/- to the complainant.

All the above directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.”

                             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant booked a flat No. D-1-B 707 in the project of OPs situated at SRS Real Estate Limited, Sector -7, Palwal on 27.11.2014 with a total basic price of Rs.16,58,507/-. Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque at the time of booking on 27.11.2014 . At the time of submission of application form/booking of flat, OPs assured the complainant that they will inform the complainant about the approval letter of the project and installment pattern through notices. But OPs neither told about the approval letter nor about the installment plan. On 07.12.2015 complainant moved an application to refund the advance amount paid to the OPs but they refused to refund the booking amount.

                             Upon notice appellant/OPs submitted written statement that complaint is flagrant abuse of process of law as no cause of action has been accrued to file the complaint against OPs, neither there is deficiency of services to the complainant nor the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant was successful allottee in the draw of lots and he was allotted flat No. D1/B/707 at SRS Palm Homes Project on 09.04.2015. After the aforesaid allotment demand was raised through letter dated 07.12.2015 and 11.03.2016 in accordance with the payment plan which was sent by OPs to the complainant but complainant failed to make the payment of demanded amount. The complainant who deposited the booking amount and after that he is allotted flat in draw of lots is not fulfilling its obligation of executing the allotment agreement and making of payment of installment due, is not entitled for any kind of refund and complainant is bound to pay installment as demanded by letter dated 07.12.2015 and 11.03.2016 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.  

Both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims.

On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-opposite parties has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

Case called several times but never, none has appeared on behalf of respondent.  I did not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely, and therefore, I proceed to decide this appeal and going through the case file.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             The counsel of the appellants/OPs contended that the on 09.04.2015 complainant allotted a flat No. D1/B/707 at SRS Palm Homes Project.  The said flat was allotted to the complainant in a draw under the Haryana Government Town and Country Planning Department notification dated 19^th August, 2013. After the aforesaid allotment demand was sent to the complainant/respondent through letter dated 07.12.2015 and 11.03.2016 in accordance with the payment plan but complainant/respondent failed to make the payment of demanded amount. The complainant who deposited the booking amount and after that he is allotted flat in draw of lots is not fulfilling its obligation of executing the allotment agreement and making of payment of installment due, is not entitled for any kind of refund and complainant is bound to pay installment as demanded by letter dated 07.12.2015 and 11.03.2016 and prayed that appeal of the appellants/OPs may be allowed and complaint of the complainant/respondent may be dismissed.

                             I have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties and arguments of the appellants. As per version of the OPs/appellants the complainant booked a flat No. D1/B/707 at SRS Palm Homes Project and paid Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of booking.  After the aforesaid allotment demand was sent to the complainant/respondent through letter dated 07.12.2015 and 11.03.2016. But the complainant was not fulfilled the obligations of executing the allotment agreement and making of payment of installment due. On the other hand, the version of the complainant that the OPs did not provide the allotment letter, payment plan and agreement was not entered into with the allotee.

                             Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the District Forum to decide afresh.   

                             Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside without going into the merit of this case and case is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, Palwal with direction to decide the complaint afresh after giving opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence.

                             Parties/their counsel are directed to appear before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal on 10.08.2018.

                             Copy of the order be given to the appellant/respondent dasti as well as sent the same to the District Consumer Forum, Palwal forthwith for compliance. 

The statutory amount of Rs.2500/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the Appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any

         

Announced                                                                       Diwan Singh Chauhan,

18.07.2018                                                            Presiding Member

                                                                              Addl. Bench-IInd