Haryana

Panchkula

CC/112/2015

KANWALDIP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BHOOMI INFRASTRUCTURE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	112 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	22.09.2015

                                                                                                                 

Kanwaldip Singh son of Sh. Avtar Singh, resident of Kothi No. 66, Phase 2, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

 

                                                                                                 ….Complainant

Versus

1.         M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Gold City, Plot No. 11, Sector-19-D,Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705, Maharashtra.

2.         Branch Office: House No. 1411, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryaa-134112.

 

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                                    Mr.S.P. Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:            Complainant in person alongwith

Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             OPs already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the opposite parties floated a scheme for allotment of apartments in a proposed project in Sector 2, MDC, Panchkula.  The complainant applied for a flat and gave a cheque amounting to Rs. 5,64,000/- (Annexure C-1) as booking amount vide receipt dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure  C-2).  The complainant visited the site of the OPs but there was no progress or development at the site.  After passing three years (36 months) of booking, the Ops failed to start construction or give possession of the allotted flat.  The complainant wrote a letter dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure C-6) and demanded refund of his money with interest but to no avail. The Ops have collected huge amount of money from the general public, without having any intention or authority to deliver physical possession of the promised flats.  This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered AD post.  AD received back after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1 so was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2015.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No. 2 through registered AD post.  But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No. 2 and it is deemed to be served. OP no. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2015
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely and have also considered the written arguments filed by the counsel for the complainant.
6. It is evident that the complainant applied for a flat and deposited a cheque amounting to Rs. 5,64,000/-  (Annexure C-1) as booking amount vide receipt dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure  C-2).   After passing three years (36 months) of booking, the Ops did not deliver the possession of the allotted flat.  The complainant wrote a letter dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure C-6) and demanded refund of his amount with interest.  The complainant visited the office of Ops many times for seeking the refund of entire amount alongwith interest. The complainant has also filed duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go un-rebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)        To refund an amount of Rs.5,64,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation.

(ii)       To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

ANNOUNCED

22.09.2015                S.P. ATTRI              ANITA KAPOOR              DHARAM PAL

                                    MEMBER                  MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                         

                                                                        DHARAM PAL

                                                            PRESIDENT