District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.459/2021.
Date of Institution14.09.2021.
Date of Order: 06.06.2022.
Yad Ram son of Shri Om Parkash resident of House No. 496, Sant Nagar colony, Old Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. BPTP Limited, Regd. Office at M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 11001 Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 through it’s A.R./M.D.
Service also effected at
Site office Sector-81, Faridabad, Haryana. …Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Mohd. Harish Hussain , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of Opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was real son of the allottee of flat Shri Om Prakash son of Shri Deep Chand, resident of H.NO. 496, Sant Nagar Colony, Old Faridabad who expired on 20.01.2018, intimation was given to opposite party and request was made to transfer alleged flat in the name of complainant being the legal heir of deceased – Om Prakash and deceased Om Prakash left a Will in respect of alleged flat in favour of the complainant which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Faridabad having document NO. 707/3 dated 07.10.2014. The complainant’s late father Shri Om Prakash son of
Shri Deep Chand, resident of H.NO. 496, Sant Nagar colony, Old Faridabad and booked a flat with the opposite party on 16.12.2011 and paid Rs.15,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No. 2011/1400036219 dated 16.12.2011 against flat under EWS category at EWS Flats-Resort, Sector-75, Faridabad and total cost of the flat was of Rs.1,50,000/-. At the time of booking, opposite party promised to the complainant that they would provide flat to the poor persons under ERS category in Sector-75, Faridabad within 3 years from the date of booking, complainant reliance upon the promise of the opposite party and booked flat accordingly. The complainant made number of legitimate request to the opposite party since the day of booking of flat till 15.09.2014 but opposite party did not response to the legitimate request of the complainant, ultimately opposite party allot a flat to the complainant on paper and issued allotment letter on 16.09.2014 and allotted a flat/unit NO. 702, EWS Flat-Resort at Sector-75, Faridabad after receipt of Rs.39,123/- from the complainant. Thereafter on repeated demands by the opposite party to make the entire payment of the flat and accordingly complainant paid Rs.1,35,000/- upto 15.12.2014 (including booking) which was 90% cost of the flat i.e Rs.1,35,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- . The complainant had visited number of times to the office of opposite party at Faridabad and made legitimate request to hand over the possession of the alleged flat to the complainant being the legal heir of deceased Om Prakash but the opposite rdid not response to the complainant properly and complainant further requested to accept balance amount of the said flat to the opposite party and handover the physical possession of the alleged flat but the opposite party had failed to do so. Now about more than 10 years had been passed but there was nothing in the hands of the complainant after payment of Rs.1,35,000/- to the opposite party. And since the day of allotment of the said flat/unit in the name of the complainant’s father Shri Om Prakash by the opposite party were not responding properly and opposite party did not comply according to their promise and assurance made to the complainant and opposite party company collected the big amount from the complainant and there was still hope to get the flat as per promises of the opposite party company. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) handover the possession of flat allotted under EWS category having flat/unit No. 702 at EWS flat resort, Sector-075, Faridabad having super area 200 sq. feet to the complainant.
b) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses .
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that in terms of EWS policy, the opposite party duly advertised about allotment of EWS flats providing the necessary information such as the number and size of the flat, payment schedule and other essential requirements, terms and conditions regarding the draw of lots of the EWS flats. It was submitted that, after advertisement, several applicants applied, out of which the application for eligible candidates were put in for a draw of lots for allotment of the EWS flats. In terms of the policy, a committee was constituted by the Government Authority and in presence of public at large the draw of lots was carried by the said committee members, wherein one “Mr. Om Prakash was declared as one of the successful candidate and accordingly, the opposite party allotted a EWS flat No. 702, Sector-75, At Resort Faridabad, tentatively admeasuring about 200 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 16.09.2014. The complainant via his complaint had deliberately misrepresented that he made request to hand over the possession of the unit in question to the complainant. The complainant never approached the opposite party with regard to unit in question. It was stated that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite party as no falt/plot stands booked/allotted to him by the opposite party. It was further stated that the opposite party had no knowledge with regards to demise of the original allotteee by his legal heir(s) /family members. The unit in question till date stands in the name of the original allottee, whereby legally and rightfully the opposite party was accountable to the original allottee and not to the complainant due to lack of any kind of relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. It was stated that with regard to handover of the possession of the unit in question, the opposite party was ready and willingly to handover the physical possession of the unit at the earliest. It was also stated that in case the allottees did not wish to wait for possession, the opposite party was willing to refund the deposited amount with interest. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party BPTP with the prayer to : a) handover the possession of flat allotted under EWS category having flat/unit No. 702 at EWS flat resort, Sector-075, Faridabad having super area 200 sq. feet to the complainant. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses .
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A -affidavit of Yad Ram, Ex.C-1 – adhaar card,, Ex.C-2 – death certificate, Ex.C-3 – Will, Ex. C-4 & 5 – receipts, Ex.C-6 – allotment letter, Ex.C-7 & 8 – receipts.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Jay Shankar, Authorized Representative of opposite party, Ex.R-1 – resolution dated 22.11.2018.
6. During the course of arguments, Shri Jay Shankar, AR on behalf of opposite party has made a statement that “I tender cheque No. 936026 dated 18.04.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,31,441/- drawn on IndusInd Bank, New Delhi i.e. deposited amount and cheque No. 936027 dated 18.04.2022 for an amount of Rs.82,834/- drawn on Indusind Bank, New Delhi towards (interest) on deposited amount in favour of original allottee. Shri Om Parkash since the unit in question is not complete and it will take longer time to get it completed. Therefore, company is refunding the deposited amount along with interest.”
On the other hand, Mohd. Harish Hussain, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I am ready to take refund alongwith interest on the deposit amount @ 9% per annum within 30 days from the respective date of deposit.”
7. Shri Harish Hussain, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that “I received cheque No. 936027 dated 18.04.2022 amounting of Rs.82,834.00 drawn on IndusInd Bank, New Delhi and cheque No. 936026 dated 18.04.2022 for an amount of Rs.1,31,144 /- drawn on IndusInd Bank, New Delhi form opposite party as full and final payment and withdraw the same being fully satisfied..”
8. After going through the statement of both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to the record room, Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 06.06.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
