Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                             Complaint No. : 583

                                                                             Instituted on     : 26.11.2018.

                                                                             Decided on      : 25.10.2023

Jagvir Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh R/o 1770, Sector-2, Rohtak.

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

Vs.

1.  M2M Buildtech Private Limited, Registered Office at 39-G, : Pocket A-1, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, New Delhi-110096 through its Director Suresh Gogia DIN-00309565. CIN-U70109DL2012PTC242480.:
2. Subhash Chander Gogia, DIN-07202440, Director M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., R/o H.No.1448, Sector-1, Rohtak-124001.
3. Pankaj Wadhwa, DIN-02172958, Director, M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., R/o H.No.611/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak-124001.
4. Arun Kumar Rathee, DIN-06381654, Director, M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., R/o H.No. 1188, Sector-2,3 & 4, Rohtak-124001.
5. Sanjay Kumar Chugh, DIN-02854968, Director M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., R/o H.No. 1148, Ram Nagar, Ward No.34, Rohtak-124001.
6. Sanjay, DIN-06381623, Director, M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., R/o H.No.66/1, Ward No.28, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak-124001.

                                                                    ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite party  no. 1 and 3 to 6 already exparte.

                   Opposite party no. 2 given up vide order dated 14.10.2022.

                                      ORDER

VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:

1.                          Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had applied for a residential flat with the opposite parties and had paid an amount of Rs.500000/- as advance and opposite parties duly issued receipt bearing no.MBI/12-13/251 dated 07.01.2013 by erroneously typing the name of the complainant as Jagbir Singh instead of Jagvir Singh. The opposite parties promised the complainant to make allotment of flat within twelve months of registration failing which the opposite party company had promised to refund the amount alongwith interest of 18% p.a. It is further submitted that more than five years have been passed but the opposite parties have not started the construction work and complainant came to know that the said company has played fraud with him and has taken booking amount from the complainant. The complainant has came to know that the license was granted to the said company in the month of June 2014 and their building plans have not yet been approved. It is also transpired from the aforesaid license issued by the department of Town and Country planning, Haryana that opposite parties had given an undertaking that they will not sell any flat before approval of building plans and building plans are yet to be approved. In the month of August 2018, the complainant requested the opposite parties for refund of the amount paid alongwith promised interest @ 18% per annum but the opposite parties failed to do so.  Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.500000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum compounded quarterly from the date of its deposit till its realization to the complainant and appropriate amount towards compensation be also given to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no. 4 received back served but none has appeared on his behalf. As such, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.08.2019 of this Commission. Further opposite party no. 1 appeared but he do not file any reply and thereafter he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.12.2019 of this Commission. Opposite party no.2 was given up by the complainant vide statement given on dated 14.10.2022 being unnecessary party. Further opposite party no. 3, 5 and 6 appeared but they did not file any reply and thereafter they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.11.2022 of this Commission.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 30.05.2023.

4.                We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                After perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is observed that as per receipt Ex.C1 dated 07.01.2013 the opposite parties have received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. It is also clear from the license certificate Ex.C3 dated 16.06.2014 that opposite parties allotted a flat to complainant on 07.01.2013 i.e. before approval of building plans and this is beyond terms and condition of the license certificate. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and therefore, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding non refund of amount to the complainant stands proved.  This fact itself shows a great deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. So the act of opposite parties itself is not only a grave deficiency in service, such deficiencies or omission tantamounts to unfair trade practice.

6.                          We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in III(2018)CPJ 374(NC) titled as Emaar MGF  Land Vs. Gagan Gupta  and TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Aditya Tomar.  In view of the aforesaid law, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.

7.                In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

18.10.2023

                                                …………………………………..

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …...........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.                           

                                                                        ..........................................

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member.