Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/162/2017

M/s Sunihaar Properties - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Rama Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Arihant Goyal, Adv.

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	162 of 2017
Date of Institution	12.06.2017
Date of Decision	31.08.2017

M/s Sunihaar Properties, through Sh. Gagandeep Rakhi, Resident of Flat No.11A, Aastha Homes, Opposite M.C. Park, Dhakoli (ECP of Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd.).

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.3

V e r s u s

1. Mrs. Rama Garg, W/o Satish Garg, Resident of House No.76, Gulmohar Avenue, Dhakoli, Zirakpur.

  …..Respondent/Complainant

2. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., SCO No.46-47, 1st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
3.  M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd., SCO No. 46-47, 1st Floor,
   Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

      …..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:  Sh. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

                      Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                      Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.07.2017.

                      None for Respondent No.3.

                              

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.2017 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed the Opposite Parties No.1 (now appellant) & 2, 3 (now respondent No.2&3) jointly & severally as under:-

“[a]  To refund the amount of Rs.4,71,000/- to the complainant.

  [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to her.

    [c] To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

               This order be complied with by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.”

2. The facts in brief, are that, the Opposite Parties had launched a project namely, Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. at Village Mirzapur. Allured by the representations made by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant booked a unit measuring 605 Sq. Yds. by paying an amount of Rs.21,000/- on 09.06.2012 (Annexure C-2) in the proposed project to be developed by the Opposite Parties for a total consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. It was stated that after the Complainant was successful in the draw of lots on 14.06.2012, the Opposite Parties gave a Receipt vide which she was allotted Cottage Farm House Preference/Docket No.SSWP-571 (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties provided two types of payment plan i.e. Plan–A & Plan–B to the complainant, and the complainant opted Plan-A for the payment by three annual installments, which is given hereunder:-    

PAYMENT PLAN-A
Size of Plot	605 Sq. yard
On Booking	2.5 Lac
After one year	2 Lac
After Two year	1 Lac
Total	Lac

It was further stated that on 23.08.2012 the Opposite Parties issued a letter to the complainant by which they gave an option of buy back to her @ Rs.6,75,000/- after three years from the date of purchase (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs.4,50,000/- in two installments on 28.08.2012 and 14.08.2013 (Annexures C-5 & C-6), as per the payment plan opted by her. It was further stated that in order to make full and final payment, as per the payment plan, when the complainant went to the office of the Opposite Parties, to her astonishment, the Opposite Parties did not have their office at the address, where it existed earlier. It was further stated that the complainant found no one to receive the final payment. It was further stated that the complainant neither received any communication from the Opposite Parties, with regard to the full and final payment, by way of last installment. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties have indulged in unfair trade practice, by collecting the sale consideration of the Unit, in question, from the complainant without approval, sanction and permission from the Govt. agencies concerned. It was further stated that the Complainant, therefore, withheld the last installment of Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded her money back with interest, from the Opposite Parties, but to no success, as they kept on dilly dallying the matter, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3. Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 6.12.2016 and 24.3.2017. On 6.2.2017 none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 for filing reply and evidence and as such OP No.2 is proceeded against ex-parte, by the District Forum.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the Complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.3.
7. We have heard the Counsels for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsels for the Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
9. It is very clear from the record that the respondent No.1/complainant had made payment of Rs.4,50,000/- in two installments on 28.08.2012 and 14.08.2013, as per payment plan opted by her, to respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.2 i.e. M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd. Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 in the complaint i.e. M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd. & Sunihaar Properties did not appear despite service and accordingly they were proceeded exparte. In the present appeal, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Sunihaar Properties has stated that the complainant/respondent No.1 paid the entire amount to Respondent No.3 i.e. M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd. and the appellant has not placed any agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.1 and neither the respondent No.1 approached the appellant for the purpose of the alleged property. Even, in the complaint, there was no allegation against the appellant by the company. It is therefore, clear that while allowing the complaint, the learned District Forum overlooked the fact that the notice served upon the appellant, was never received by the appellant and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte. Further, the appellant has not entered into agreement with the respondent No.2 & 3 for the marketing of the project or never collected any amount from the respondent No.1 or from any other person on behalf of the respondents No.2 & 3. The respondent No.1 has also not placed on record any evidence showing agreement or understanding between the respondents No.2 & 3 and therefore the appellant is not liable to make any payment to the complainant. Accordingly, the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned District Forum, is set aside qua appellant/Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Sunihaar Properties.
10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
11.  In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted qua appellant/Opposite Party No.3, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, accordingly.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

 

Pronounced.

31.08.2017

 

                                                                Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                       

                                                                                         Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                        

                                                                               Sd/-   

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

 

 

GP

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

APPEAL No.162 of 2017

(M/s Sunihaar Properties Vs. Mrs. Rama Garg & Ors.)

 

Argued by:

Sh. Arihant Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.07.2017.

None for Respondent No.3.

 

Dated    the   31^st  day of  August, 2017

                       

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been accepted, and the order passed by the District Forum has been modified, accordingly.

 

 

Sd/-                        Sd/-                  Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER