Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 19.
Instituted on : 08.01.2019.
Decided on : 15.11.2019.
Renu Sehrawat w/o Sh. Vikas Sehrawat, R/o H.No.2061 Sector-3(P), Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd. office at D-43, Sector-6 Noida-201301(U.P.) through its Managing Director/Chairman.
- M/s M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd. Branch Office at Kheri Sadh on Delhi Road, Main Road Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak through its Principal Officer.
- Rakesh Sharma, Director, M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd., R/o 255/19, Gali No.1, Kailash Colony, Sonepat-131001.
……….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.Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 & 3 exparte.
Opposite party No.2 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had applied for a residential flat with the respondents and had paid an amount of Rs.400000/-(Rs. four lakhs only) by cash. The respondents duly issued receipt bearing no.MBI/12-13/317 dated 19.01.2013 duly signed by their authorized signatory Ms. Archna in favour of complainant. That the respondents promised the complainant to refund advance registration amount alongwith interest of 36% p.a. in case respondents fail to allot a residential flat within three 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. That 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.400000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 36% per annum from the date of its deposit till its realization to the complainant and Rs.100000/- as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses, as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service of notice through registered post and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.04.2019 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 28.08.2019 being unnecessary party. .
3. Complainant led evidence in support of her case.
4. Complainant in her evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence on dated 22.10.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
6. After perusal of the documents placed on record by the complainant, we come to the conclusion that the respondents have received an amount of Rs.400000/- from the complainant as per receipt Ex.P1 dated 19.01.2013. A letter Ex.P3 vide memo No.LC2848-PA(B)-2013/57687 issued by the department on dated 18.11.2013 and on that day the letter of intent for grant of license for setting up of residential group housing colony over an area measuring 7.418 acres falling in revenue estate of village Kheri Sadh, Sector 27A, Rohtak has been granted to the complainant. It means that on dated 18.11.2013 the respondents have no licence to built up a residential premises because the amount had already been received on 19.01.2013. 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. 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 all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party No.1 & 3 regarding receiving of money, non starting of construction work and non-allotment of flat to the complainant stands proved.
7. 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 OP No.1 & 3 are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
8. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs.400000/-(Rupees four lacs 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.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.
9. 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:
15.11.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
