DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No : 509 OF 2010 Date of Institution : 12.08.2010 Date of Decision : 22.11.2011 N.P. Bhosle, R/o 11 Capital SQN, Air Force Station Harni Vadodara (Gujarat). ---Complainant V E R S U S [1] Chandigarh Colonizer Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Off. SCO No.18, Sec.20-B, Chandigarh. [2] Emgrum Projects Ltd., B-8/705 G.O. I.T.L. Town, Netaji Subhash Place, Pritam Pura, Delhi. [Deleted vide order dated 18/11/2010] ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. P.S. Punia, Adv for the Complainant. Sh. Aman Arora, Adv for OP No.1. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1] This complaint involves alleged deficiency in service by the OP for retaining the amount deposited by the Complainant, against a building project. The Complainant has submitted that he had booked a flat with OP No.1 in Project OPERA GARDEN at Zirakpur. He had paid Rs.3.00 lacs through Cheque No. 310371, dated 15/05/2006, as token money. The Complainant later came to know that there was a dispute amongst the members of OPERA CCPL Group and the Construction Company ran into rough weather. The Complainant has alleged that instead of returning the booked amount, the OP wrote a letter dated 21/02/2007, calling upon the Complainant to pay the first installment of Rs.3.00 lacs. The Complainant was informed that in case no response was received from him by 15/07/2007, it would be presumed that the Complainant was not interested in allotment of the Apartment, in which case, the booking amount would be refunded, after deducting administrative and other charges. The Complainant has further alleged that despite the fact that the OP had stated that the amount would be refunded, they have not yet honoured their commitment. The Complainant, thus, served a legal noticed upon the OPs, calling them to refund the amount, along with interest. In response to the said legal notice, the OPs admitted the payment of Rs.3.00 lacs and stated that the construction activities and the project were still continuing. No further explanation was given. The Complainant has, thus, filed the instant complaint, requesting that the OPs be directed to refund the amount, along with interest @12% p.a. 2] After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs. On a separate statement given by the learned counsel for the Complainant to the effect that he does not have any claim against OP No. 2, the name of OP No. 2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 18/11/2010. OP No.1, in their reply, has admitted that they had floated a Scheme for construction of luxury apartments under the name and style of “Opera Garden”, and had accordingly, advertised for booking of flats/ apartments. The response was so overwhelming that OPs had to return some applications because of non-availability of flats/ apartments. It has further been submitted that Rs.3.00 lacs have been received from the customers including the Complainant as earnest money for flat. According to the OP No.1 all money received from various Applicants/ allottees had been invested in the construction of the project. The construction of the flats is at full swing. However, as certain people had invested for speculative purposes, the OPs were pushed into a peculiar vicious circle of money constraint, as the allottees failed to make scheduled payments and became defaulters. The OP No.1 has stated that the Complainant, as per the offer, was to execute all relevant documents, including an agreement to sale and was required to pay all charges mentioned in the agreement. Thereafter, payment was to be made as per the Schedule. Till date, the Complainant had not executed any documents or made any payments. The OP has stated that they are willing to settle the dispute with the allottees, once the construction is complete. OP has, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5] The lis between the parties is about non-refund of the amount deposited by the Complainant with the OP. It is evident from the facts placed on record that the Project in question, which seemed very attractive, initially, has now, run into rough weather, and the OP is under financial constraints. Hence, they are unable to complete the construction. It is also evident from the factual position that the Complainant is not willing to continue with the Scheme and wishes for refund of the amount paid by him, along with interest. We also feel that the Complainant should not be made to wait indefinitely for the construction to be completed to get his flat. No time has been given by the OP about the completion. Also no offer has been made to compensate the Complainant adequately for the delay. 6] In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainant with them, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The OP will also pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. 7] The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay interest on the decretal amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation. 8] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 22.11.2011 Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
