BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 513 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 23.08.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 26.04.2011 |
Mr.Tarlochan Singh s/o Sh.Dhian Singh r/o H.No.1330-A, Sector 68, Mohali (Pb.). ….…Complainant V E R S U S M/s J.S.Dwellers Pvt. Limited having its Administrative Office at SCO No.210-211, 2nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Director Sudeep Singh Sabharwal (presently confined in Burial Jail, UT, Chandigarh). ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant. OP exparte. --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Tarlochan Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that OP floated a scheme under the name of “Cresent Apartment” at Baddi (HP). There was a proposal to develop apartments on the total land comprised in Khasra No.652/475, Khatuani No.61/70 situated in Village Saner, Hadbast No.161, P.O.Manpura, Prg. Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. It is the case of the complainant that OP allured him through attractive advertisements in leading newspapers for the purchase of the plots by giving a rosy picture and declaring the flats as “the height of luxury and comfort”. The flats were declared to be duly approved by the Himachal Govt. vide licence No.145/2006. Attracted by the said advertisement, the complainant along with his family visited the site and decided to deposit Rs.25000/- with OP vide receipt No.350 dated 21.12.2005(Annexure C-3). The total price of the apartment booked by the complainant consisting of three bed rooms drawing/dining, kitchen and toilets, ground floor was fixed at Rs.14.50 lacs which includes the sanitary and electrical fittings etc. As per the complainant, he also deposited Rs.2.00 lacs vide cheque No.415035 dated 4.8.2006 with the OP. It is further the case of the complainant that a apartment buyer agreement dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure C-6) was executed at Chandigarh between the parties. As per the clause No.14 of the said agreement, the builder shall complete the project within 2 years from the start of construction approval. That as per clause No.8, the seller shall intimate the buyer with regard to the completion of the apartment by way of written communication for obtaining the physical possession of the flat. Vide letter Annexure C-7, the complainant was informed by OP that certain modifications have been made by HIMUDA (Himachal Urban Development Authority) in the existing project and as such the covered area has been reduced to 30% to 35% and consequently the fresh map papers were submitted to the competent authority at Shimla and, therefore, the said project would start in the next month, hence the delay is regretted. It is the grouse of the complainant that after gap of two years time stipulated in the said agreement, nothing happened to complete the construction of the flat despite the fact that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the middle of June, 2009, the complainant visited the site and found the office of the OP locked. According to the complainant, OP has been arrested by the Chandigarh police in cheating case. As per complainant, he made repeated requests to refund the deposited amount but all in vain, hence this complaint. 2. OP was refused to accept the notice, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.03.2011. 3. The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 5. The perusal of Annexure C-3 reveals that the amount Rs.25,000/- has been paid to the OP on 21.12.2005. Annexure C-5 is the copy of the statement of accounts of Corporation Bank, SAS Ngar, District Ropar and the careful scrutiny of the same reveals that on 07.08.2006, the cheque No.145035 for Rs.2 lacs has been issued in favour of the OP. 6. Admittedly, the OP despite service did not care to contest the case and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the OP admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. Moreover, the evidence led by the complainant has also gone un-rebutted and un-controverted. Non-refund of Rs.2,25,000/- despite the repeated requests of the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the complainant is held entitled to refund of Rs.2,25,000/-. 7. As result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to refund Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the respective dates of deposits till realization along with Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 8. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 26.04.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
