BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 4 of 2015
Date of institution: 02.01.2015
Date of Decision: 23.04.2015
Amit Goel son of Surinder Goel, # 466/2, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
BCL Homes Ltd., Site Office, Chinar Homes, Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali through its official Signatory.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Shri Anand Rohilla, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite Party ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant Amit Goel has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the OP to:
(a) refund him Rs.1,11,111/- deposited as booking amount of the proposed flat.
(b) to pay him interest to the tune of Rs.50,000/- @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 23.03.2012
(c) to pay him Rs.25,000/- as legal expenses.
(d) to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for harassment.
The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that the OP is a coloniser and developer. On the going through an advertisements Ex.C-1 and C-2 of the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.1,11,111/- with the OP as booking amount towards the flat on 21.11.2011 receipt Ex.C-3 whereof was issued by the OP. Despite repeated written and verbal requests, no agreement for the proposed flat was entered into between the parties. The complainant did not receive any positive response from the OP regarding status of the project or refund of the deposited amount. It was informed that the land for the project of the OP would shortly be approved by the Punjab Govt. During his visit to the OP On 16.05.2014 he was informed that the money would not be refunded to him. The complainant then served a legal notice dated 16.06.2014 Ex.C-4 but without any response from the OP. Neither the status of the project has been informed to the complainant nor his deposited amount has been refunded despite duly served upon legal notice dated 16.06.2014. Therefore, the complainant is left with no other option but to file the present complaint.
2. After the admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP through the registered post and as per the report retrieved from India post site, the notice was delivered to the OP on 12.01.2015. Despite proper and effective service, none appeared on behalf of the OP and thus was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2015.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-5.
4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OP was given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for it to rebut the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and written arguments. As stated above no one appeared on behalf of the OP throughout the proceedings.
6. Before we go into the merits of the case, it will be pertinent to go into the very root of the issue i.e. the maintainability of the complaint on the ground whether the complainant is a consumer or not. Admittedly, the complainant has filed earlier complaint No. 482 of 2014 which was returned to the complainant on the ground that the complainant being a prospective consumer, the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint was returned to the complainant with the liberty to approach the appropriate Forum. Rather than approaching alternate/appropriate Forum, the complainant has filed the same complaint on the ground that the definition of consumer as decided under Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Krishan Pal Chander, 2010 (1) C)J 99 (NC) has now been changed by the Hon’ble National Commission and, therefore, his complaint under the latest judgment of Hon’ble National in Kushal K. Rana Vs. M/s. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. Consumer Complaint No.88 of 2012 decided on 09.09.2014 is maintainable.
7. We have gone through the judgment K. Rana Vs. M/s. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. (supra) and found that in para 21 of the judgment, the allottee of a commercial space for self employment to earn his livelihood has been held to be a consumer. The facts of that judgment are different from the facts of the present complaint as the present complainant is only a prospective buyer who has booked the flat and, therefore, his earlier complaint No.482 of 2014 was returned to him being not maintainable. The complainant has chosen to file the complaint again on the strength of the judgment of K. Rana Vs. M/s. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. (supra) which is not applicable to the facts of the present complaint.
8. Therefore, we found that judgment regarding prospective consumer and maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and another Vs. Krishan Pal Chander (supra) has not changed and is over ruled by the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in K. Rana Vs. M/s. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd. (supra).
9. Therefore, the complainant being a prospective consumer, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and is hereby returned to the complainant with endorsement of date of institution and date of return with the liberty to approach appropriate authority/Forum for redressal of his grievance. Photocopies of the complaint and documents be retained by the Forum for office record. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs forthwith and thereafter the papers be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 23, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
