DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/110/2020
Date of Institution: 13.07.2020
Date of Decision: 07.10.2024
Manoranjan Kumar Debey son of Rajendra Dubey now resident of House No. 1715, Gali No. 3-A, Shakti Nagar, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager.
2. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., 755, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana-140001 through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., K-28, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016 through its Managing Director.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal Adv counsel for complainant.
Smt. Anu Sharma Adv counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2.
Opposite party No. 3 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under The Consumer Protection Act against M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd., Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties gave an advertisement and put up big holdings in Barnala and its surrounding that they are promoting an ultra modern colony named as Dynamic Colony (now M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd.) and the colony will have ultra modern amenities and facilities to enhance style and swiftication, luxurious villas, club with swimming pool, shopping centre, nursery school for kids, well designed lush green parks. It is further alleged that a wide range indeed catering to individual cum family needs of the future residents and all modern amenities like 24 x 7 availability of water, power backup and underground power cable will be provided. It is further alleged that on trusting the words of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the opposite parties for the purchase of one plot in the said colony and the opposite parties gave the complainant one brochure mentioning the best qualities/features of the colony and also told the complainant that the plot buyers will enjoy the most luxurious and natural living in the said colony and the colony will be developed within one year. It is further alleged that the complainant, who is living in a rented house booked a plot No. 72 having a area of 250 sq. yd. in the said colony. It is further alleged that the opposite parties told the price of said plot as Rs. 6,750/- per sq. yd. and the complainant deposited Rs. 8,47,500/- as part payment in five installments through cheque/cash, as such receipts were issued in the name of complainant by the opposite parties. It is alleged that opposite parties only issued receipts for installments paid showing plot No. on the receipts but no allotment letter was issued to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times for the purpose making the remaining payment and to take demarcation/possession of plot alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by the opposite parties but all in vain. It is alleged that the complainant served a registered legal notice dated 29.6.2020 through counsel but the opposite parties never gave reply. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the site of the said colony many times to watch what is the progress at the site but there was only one watchman at the site and very sad to see that no development work was done and nothing seems to be done soon and no one has constructed house in the said colony. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties to get the possession of said plot alongwith basic amenities as promised by them or for the refund of deposited amount but the opposite parties avoided the complainant on pretext or the other and some days ago flatly refused to refund the amount. The act of the opposite parties is not only a deficiency in service but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
- To give possession of the plot No. 72 having an area of 250 sq. yds. alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by them or refund the amount of Rs. 8,47,500/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the dates of payments till realization.
- To pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary submission and objections interalia on the grounds that the opposite parties were registered under the companies act, 1956, under the name of “Dynamic Continental (P) Ltd.” which name was duly changed on 29.12.2010 to “Curo India Pvt. Ltd.” after completion of procedures established under the companies act. It is further alleged that the complainant does not qualify to fall within the definition of Consumer under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant booked the said plot for the purpose of resale i.e. for commercial purpose and profits. It is alleged that complainant had transferred the said plot to Shri Navrag Kudesia and the complainant had submitted an application for transfer of booking of plot No. 72 dated 11.5.2011 indemnity bond dated 10.5.2011 and affidavit dated 10.5.2011 to the opposite parties. It is further alleged that Shri Navrag Kudesia had also submitted an application dated 19.5.2011, indemnity bond and affidavit dated 19.5.2011 to the opposite parties. The above said transfer of plot proves that the complainant had purchased the plot for commercial purpose. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as he has transferred the booking of plot No. 72 to Navrag Kudesia. It is further alleged that the cause of action is alleged to have lastly arisen on 14.3.2011 whereas the permissible limitation period is two years. Moreover, no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is further alleged that in the case in hand no allotment letter was issued to the complainant and the status of the transaction between the parties was only that of booking of plot against future payments and the allotment letter was to be issued only after the payment of balance consideration of said plot. It is further alleged that no particulars much less material particulars have been set out in the purported complaint, which shows any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Commission etc.
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the price of the said plot is Rs. 6750/- sq. yds. The receipts issued to the complainant on the payment made through cheques were subject to realization, so the complainant be put to proof of the realization of cheques in favour of opposite parties. It is further submitted that the complainant was not issued any allotment letter because the allotment letter is always issued on the receipt of entire consideration amount by the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the terms and conditions of the booking of the plot and the payment plan were supplied to the complainant. It is further alleged that the demarcation/possession/allotment letter of the plot in question can only be given in the eventuality of complainant paying the full sale consideration of the plot. It is alleged that the complainant had already transferred the booking of plot No. 72 in favour of Navrag Kudesia, so the complainant has concocted a false story of approaching the opposite parties for demarcation and possession. It is further alleged that the present complaint has been filed out of greed for unjust enrichment. Neither the complainant nor the transferee paid the balance consideration for nearly 10 years, as such the amount paid by him stands forfeited. It is further submitted that Dynamic Homes is PUDA approved colony and all the street lights and external electrification work has been completed and the electrical connection along with Genset Backup is already installed at the site. It is further submitted that the sewerage lines as per NBC norms have already been laid and tested and drinking as well as irrigation water lines have also been laid and tested as per NBC norms and all parks have been completed and being maintained. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.9.2020 due to non appearance.
6. The complainant on 25.2.2022 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder.
7. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoranjan Kumar Dubey as Ex.C-1, copies of receipts are Ex.C-2 to C-6, copy of brochure as Ex.C-7, copies of Emails Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
8. The opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rupinder Singh as Ex.OP1.2/1, copy of Extract of Board Resolution as Ex.OP1.2/2, copy of certificate of change of name as Ex.OP1.2/3, copy of application for transfer dated 11.5.2011 Ex.OP1.2/4, copy of Indemnity Bond dated 10.5.2011 Ex.O.P1.2/5, copy of affidavit dated 10.5.2011 Ex.OP1.2/6, copy of application for transfer dated 19.5.2011 Ex.O.P1.2/7, copy of Indemnity Bond dated 19.5.2011 Ex.O.P1.2/8, copy of affidavit dated 19.5.2011 Ex.O.P1.2/9, copy of PUDA approved Map Ex.O.P1.2/10, photographs Ex.O.P1.2/11 to Ex.O.P1.2/15, copy of letter dated 11.10.2018 issued by RERA Ex.O.P1.2/16, copy of Certificate of Renewal as Ex.OP1.2/17, copy of SCO from PSPCL dated 28.4.2023 Ex.O.P1.2/18, copy of NOC from National highway authority of India, NOC from Punjab Pollution Board, NOC from PSPCL, NOC from Forest department are Ex.O.P1.2/19 to Ex.O.P1.2/22 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties gave an advertisement that they are promoting an ultra modern colony named as Dynamic Colony (now M/s Curo India Pvt. Ltd.) and the colony will have ultra modern amenities and facilities. The complainant approached the opposite parties for the purchase of one plot in the said colony and the opposite parties gave the complainant one brochure mentioning the best qualities/features of the colony. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite parties told the price of said plot as Rs. 6,750/- per sq. yds. and the complainant deposited Rs. 8,47,500/- as part payment in five installments through cheque/cash, as such receipts were issued in the name of complainant by the opposite parties. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argue that the complainant had approached the opposite parties many a times for the purpose of making the remaining payment and to take demarcation/possession of plot alongwith basic amenities and facilities as promised by the opposite parties but all in vain. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant visited the site of the said colony many times to watch what is the progress at the site but there was only one watchman at the site and very sad to see that no development work was done and nothing seems to be done soon and no one has constructed house in the said colony. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant approached the opposite parties for the refund of deposited amount but the opposite parties avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and some days ago flatly refused to refund the amount.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that the complainant was not issued any allotment letter because the allotment letter is always issued on the receipt of entire consideration amount by the opposite parties. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that the demarcation/possession/allotment letter of the plot in question can only be given in the eventuality of complainant paying the full sale consideration of the plot. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that the complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the complainant had already transferred the booking of plot No. 72 in favour of Navrag Kudesia. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that neither the complainant nor the transferee paid the balance consideration for nearly 10 years, as such the amount paid by him stands forfeited. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that Dynamic Homes is PUDA approved colony and all the street lights and external electrification work has been completed and the electrical connection along with Genset Backup is already installed at the site. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that the sewerage lines as per NBC norms have already been laid and tested and drinking as well as irrigation water lines have also been laid and tested as per NBC norms and all parks have been completed and being maintained.
12. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have taken specifically preliminary objection that the complainant does not qualify to fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant had already transferred the booking of plot No. 72 in favour of Sh. Navrag Kudesia. The complainant also submitted an application for transfer of booking of Plot No. 72 measuring 250 sq. yds dated 11.5.2011, Indemnity Bond dated 10.5.2011, affidavit dated 10.5.2011. Sh. Navrag Kudesia also submitted an application dated 19.5.2011, Indemnity Bond dated 19.5.2011 and affidavit dated 19.5.2011 to the opposite parties. The above said transfer of plot proves that the complainant had purchased the plot for commercial purpose. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have produced Ex.O.P1.2/4 the application submitted by the complainant for transfer of booking of Plot No. 72 measuring 250 sq.yds in favour of Navrag Kudesia son of late Sh. Laxman Singh Kudesia B-XI/1827, Street No. 5, Gobind Colony, Barnala. The complainant also submitted the Indemnity Bond Ex.O.P1.2/5 in which the complainant himself mentioned that “the executant shall have no claim, right, lien, charge or interest of any kind with respect to the aforesaid booking of the plot w.e.f. the date of said transfer”. The complainant also submitted the affidavit Ex.O.P1.2/6 with the opposite parties in which the complainant mentioned that I have now applied for transfer of the said booking in the name of Mr. Navraj Kudesia and undertakes that “I shall have no claim, right, lien, charge or interest of any kind with respect to the aforesaid booking of the plot w.e.f. the date of said transfer”. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 also produced the application dated 19.5.2011 Ex.O.P1.2/7 submitted by said Navraj Kudesia alongwith Indemnity Bond Ex.O.P1.2/8 and affidavit Ex.O.P1.2/9.
13. From the above said documents produced by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 it established that before the filing of the present complaint the complainant had transferred the property in question in favour of Navraj Kudesia and the complainant himself submitted the application, affidavit and Indemnity Bond with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for transferring the same. The complainant admitted in the said documents that he shall have no claim, right, lien, charge or interest of any kind with respect to the aforesaid property from the date of said transfer. The evidence produced by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 regarding the above said transfer is un-rebutted. So, we are of the view that without going into the merits of the present case it is established that the complainant is not consumer of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as he has already transferred the said property in favour of some other person and he has no further interest vested in the property in question. The complainant has also concealed the material facts, regarding transfer of property at the time of filing the present complaint. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands.
14. From the above discussion, it established that the complainant is not consumer of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and the complaint of complainant is not maintainable and same is dismissed without costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
7th Day of October, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
