Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 407.
Instituted on : 5.9.2018.
Decided on : 29.11.2019.
Smt. Parkash Devi wife of Shri R.M.S. Malik, resident of House No.424/30, Dev Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd. 345, Tower-B, Spaze Edge Sector-27, Sohna Road, Gurgaon through its Principal Officer/Authorized Signatory/Director.
- M/s M2M Buildtech(P) Ltd., Branch Office at Kheri Sadh, on Delhi Road Main Road, Sampla, District Rohtak through its Principal Officer.
- (ASCENT GROUP) D-43, Sector-6, 3rd Floor, Noida-201301 through its Principal Officer/Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.K.Sapra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.C.Sikri, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Opposite party no.3 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had booked a flat with the respondents and had paid an amount of Rs.400000/-(Rs. four lakhs) through cheque bearing No. 798308 dated 8.1.2013 drawn on State Bank of India. The respondents duly issued receipt bearing no.MBI/12-13/272 dated 8.1.2013. That the respondents promised the complainant to refund advance registration amount alongwith interest of 24% p.a. in case respondents fail to allot a flat within one years of advance registration and to raise construction for the above said project. That the respondents have neither started the construction work nor allotted any flat to complainant till date. Complainant applied for refund of amount and deposited all the requisite documents with the opposite parties which were acknowledged by their authorized person on 08.09.2017, but the respondents did not release the above said amount despite the repeated representations and reminders of the complainant. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the respondents to make the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of due till its realization to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.400000/- through cheque bearing no.798308 dated 8.1.2013, vide receipt dated 8.1.2013 and has filed the complaint on 5.9.2018 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of 2 years. That the complainant is not a consumer as the flat was not required by the complainant for his personal use, the present complaint is time barred by limitation. That there was no agreement between the parties for completion of work within one year. That the total value of the flat in dispute is more than 20 lakhs i.e. value of the jurisdiction of this Court. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the registered office/head office of the OPs is at Noida. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought. However, opposite party No.3 failed to appear before the Forum, despite service. Hence, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.2.2019 of this Forum.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 4.4.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that the reply already filed in this case, be read as affidavit in evidence, and has closed his evidence on dated 19.9.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
6. The objection as to commercial purpose was taken during the pendency of the complaint but OPs failed to place any cogent evidence or material which could prove that the flat was purchased for commercial purpose. Regarding the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction, the total relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs. So this objection is turned down. Regarding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the office of opposite parties is situated at Rohtak and the flat in dispute is also situated at Rohtak, so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the offer of the opposite parties complainant paid Rs.4,00,000/- which was accepted by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is a consumer.
7. After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that the respondents have received an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant as per receipt Ex.C1 dated 8.1.2013. As per letter Ex.C3, complainant has applied for cancellation of alleged plot and to refund the amount of Rs.400000/- and No objection certificate Ex.C4 is also issued by the complainant but till date the amount has not been refunded to the complainant despite her repeated requests. This fact itself shows a great deficiency in service on the part of respondents. So the act of opposite parties itself is not only a grave deficiency in service, such deficiencies or omission tantamounts to unfair trade practice.
8. 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 opposite party No.1 and 2 are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
9. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh only) which shall be paid by opposite party No.1 and 2 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite party No.1 and 2 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. 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:
29.11.2019
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
