Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/919/2018

Rekha Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Sharma

10 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   RBT/CC/919/2018

Complaint No. 919 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Institution: 06.09.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 10.02.2022

Rekha Aggarwal W/o Manish Aggarwal , R/o N-290, 26^th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai, 600001.

                                                                                      …………....Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Arun Bandha S/o Balwant Rai, Site office; Sector 125, Chandigarh-Kharar Highway, SAS Nagar (Mohali).   

 

2. Arun Bandha S/o Balwant Rai, Director, M/s Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd R/o #51 Partap Colony, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

 

3. Ravi Kant S/o Chirannji Lal, Director, M/s Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd., R/o #213, Gali No.6, Dashmesh Nagar, Moga.

 

4. Sanjay Kochar, Manager/Representative M/s. Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd. R/o #1260, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

 

5. Sewa Singh, Marketing Agent, M/s Best Homz Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd. R/o #3614, Sector 46-C, U.T. Chandigarh.

 

..………....... Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

 

Present: Sh. Varun Shamra, counsel for complainant.

              OPs No.1 and 2 ex parte

              Sh.Divyjot Singh Sandhu, counsel for OP No.3

              Complaint against OPs No.4 and 5 not admitted.

 

OrderBy

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs (opposite parties) for refund of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by her for booking of a flat. The complaint was admitted only against OPs No.1 to 3 and they were summoned to face the trial of this complaint.

 

2.                   The complainant has alleged that the OPs No.1 to 3 as Builders and Promoters allured the complainant to provide her a 2BHK flat at Kharar duly approved by the GMADA and complainant booked a flat for the purpose of his residence and deposited booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque No.578875 dated 09.11.2012 and in this regard a receipt was also issued by the OPs.

 

3.                  Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. The OPs No.1 and 2 have not come forward, only OP No.3 has come to contest the petition and filed a reply in the shape of affidavit however he did not come present subsequently. In reply the OP No.3 has not denied the receipt of booking of Rs.1,00,000/-.But he has raised an objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. The OP No.3 has also admitted that the OPs applied for seeking licence for nine-story apartment but the same has not approved by GMADA. He has also alleged that they sought approval for project from MC Kharar, for a project with ground plus two floors and the said project has been completed and the possession has been handed over to buyers. The complainant was given an opportunity to opt for these flats. But we find that there is nothing on the file to prove that any alternative site was offered by the OPs to the complainant even otherwise the complainant cannot be compelled to take any alternative site when she booked a flat at Mohali. So far as the limitation for filing the complaint is concerned we are of the view that the amount was paid by the complainant for booking the flat and it was not a any loan so it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation as the OPs had agreed to give the flat to the complainant then till the flat is given to the complainant there is a recurring cause of action to the complainant and it is an admitted fact that the OPs No.1 to 3 received booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant but failed to even construct any flat as such the complainant is entitled to get his amount refunded.
4.             The OPs No.1 to 3 used the money of complainant as such the complainant is entitled to the interest and in our opinion the interest @ 12% is reasonable rate of interest and the complainant shall also be entitled to litigation expenses. It is also not disputed that OPs No.2 to 3 are the Directors of OP No.1
5.               In view of our aforementioned discussions the complaint is allowed and the OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to refund amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order along with simple interest @ 12% from the date of payment till the date of realization. The complainant is also entitled to amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the harassment. The OPs No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay the entire amount jointly and severally. Copy of this order be provided to the complainant and OPs No.1 to 3 free of cost. The file be return back to the District Consumer Commission, Mohali for consignment.

 

 

 

 

•  
•  

(Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                             President

 

                                                                            

                                                                            

(Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

 

 

 

(Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                             Member