DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.707 of 2019
Date of institution: 13.05.2019 Date of decision : 08.09.2020
Rashmi Sethi W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar Sethi, Resident of Flat No. 302, Satyam Apartments, Sawastik Vihar, Patiala Road, Zirakpur ( Punjab).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Mr. Anil Vaswani, Managing Director, SMV Agencies Pvt Ltd, A-14, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.
2. Mr. Surya Kant Jaipuria, Director SMV Agencies Pvt, Ltd, A-14, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048.
3. Mr. Sunil Gupta, General Manager, SCO-25, Jaipuria Sunrise Plaza, VIP Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali ( Punjab)-140603
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
Complainant Rashmi Sethi (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that CC booked a flat/unit in the project of the OPs known as Sunrise Greens, Zirakpur having basic price of Rs.4,00,000/- for which she paid the booking amount of Rs.48,501/- on 05.03.2013 and was accordingly allotted unit no. Y-006 and an allotment letter dated 05.03.2013 was also given to the CC. From the perusal of this letter , it is clear that total price of the unit was Rs. 4,00,000/- only and the booking amount was Rs.48,501/-. It is further alleged that the unit was to be allotted to the CC on 30.09.2014 in down payment plan after three months of completion of period of installment plan subject to the receipt of entire basic prices, extra charges and registration charges etc. It is further mentioned in the complaint that offer of possession of the unit will be given after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the allottees . It is further alleged that after payment of booking amount, another amount of Rs.48,501/- as installment plus Rs. 1,433/- as service tax was paid by the CC on 21.01.2014 vide receipt no. 4515 dated 21.01.2014. It is further averred that after paying Rs. 98,501/-, the OPs asked for the balance amount, plus incidental charges for the flat and thereupon a settlement dated 16.02.2015 was entered into between the OPs and the CC, by which CC paid Rs. 3,23,160/- which included IFMS security and advance for one year maintenance charges. The amount was paid vide cheque no. 000056 dated 31.01.2015. Accordingly receipt no. 6871 dated 23.02.2015 was issued by the OPs. Settlement sheet was also signed by both the parties. It is alleged that in this way the OPs received a total sum of Rs. 4,21,661/- from the CC as entire sale consideration for the flat in question. It is further alleged that apart from the said payment, CC had been regularly paying the security and maintenance charges to the OPs. Actual and physical possession of the flat was handed over to the CC on 10.04.2015. As per clause No. 28 of the allotment letter dated 05.03.2013, it was agreed upon that the CC will get exclusive possession of the built up area of the unit and title of the said area along with proportionate undivided share in the land under the block through a sale deed. CC has specifically averred in her complaint that she is earning less than Rs. 10,000/- per month and had no property in her name in Punjab or any other part of India. Moreover it was never mentioned in the allotment letter that she had to submit BPL card or any other proof to the OPs to prove that she falls within the preview of economically weaker section category. CC was shocked to receive the letter 23.01.2019 i.e. after approx. after 5 years of allotment, asking the CC to file BPL card and other EWS proof and to collect the refund of Rs.3,40,000/- since the OPs have cancelled the allotment of the unit No.Y-006. The act of the OPs has caused physical and mental harassment to the CC, who is a poor lady.
Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought following reliefs:-
- OP be directed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the CC
- OP be further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony to the CC and further Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Complaint of the CC is properly signed, verified and also supported by an affidavit.
4. The OPs have chosen to remain ex-parte. The OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.08.2019
5. Since entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OPs are already ex-parte, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties, if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide a speedy justice to the parties.
6. Since the entire evidence of the CC is already on the file and the averments of the complaint are unrebutted and appears to be cogent and genuine , we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint. It is proved on the file that an allotment of unit/flat no.Y- 006 in Sunrise Greens, Zirakpur was done in favour of the CC by the OPs. CC has submitted allotment letter Ex C-1 to prove this specific contention that unit no.Y-006, ground floor was allotted to the CC. From the allotment letter Ex C-1 along with other documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-9, it is clear that the CC has paid each and every single penny to the OPs by way of installments and in total had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- . CC has further submitted Ex C-5 from where it is clear that cause of action has arisen in favour of the CC since the OPs by way of this notice had cancelled the allotment of flat no. Y-006.
7. The point in controversy before us is whether the OPs in an arbitrary manner can cancel the allotment of the flat of the CC which was already allotted to her and was in her possession, and where she was already giving even maintenance charges to the OPs regularly, simply on the ground that she has not submitted the BPL card proof etc. We feel that by serving this type of notice on the CC, the OPs are definitely have committed deficiency in service on their part. The Consumer Protection Act envisages a different system of dispensation of justice. The Act is passed with a view to provide better protection to the consumers and to protect such type of poor people who cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, where it is difficult to get a speedy and inexpensive justice. Since the entire evidence filed by the CC is absolutely unrebutted and confidence inspiring we have no alternative except to believe her complaint.. Accordingly, we feel that OPs by serving this kind of notice Ex C-5 definitely committed deficiency in service on this poor lady and have snatched her mental peace and have also caused physical harassment.
8. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and it is ordered:-
i) That the OPs will immediately withdraw the notice Ex C-5 issued on this poor CC which is arbitrary illegal and against law.
ii) It is further alleged that OPs will immediately after contacting the CC will get the sale deed executed in her favour by bearing all expenses.
iii) OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) to the CC for causing mental and physical harassment.
iv) It is further ordered that the OPs will pay Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the CC.
Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.
Announced
September 08, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
(Inderjit)
Member
