Haryana

Panchkula

CC/12/2015

PARMINDER SINGH GULATI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MOUNT KAILASH LAND BASE PVT .LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	12 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	15.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2015

Parminder Singh Gulati S/o late Sh.Surinder Singh Gulati, R/o House No.1031/2, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Mount Kailash Land Base Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.18, 19, Silvercity Extn. Zirakpur, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar, (Punjab) through its Director.

          2^nd Address

          Mount Kailash Land Base Pvt. Ltd., House No.654, Sector-21, District Panchkula (Haryana) through its Director.

2.       Branch Head, Mount Kailash Land Base Pvt. Ltd., SCO 231, First Floor, Sector-20, District Panchkula, Haryana.                                                                    

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Vijay Goyal, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant-Parminder Singh Gulati with the averments that he was on a look out for suitable residential flat according to their choice, design and taste. The complainant contacted the Ops and he was impressed by the claims/projections made by the Ops vide repeated advertisements/brochures for sale of flats and created a very rosy picture of the plots to be sold and complex etc. The Ops have committed to the complainant that they were builder, developer and owner of the residential land, Khata No.18/69-1, Khasra No.41//12/2(1-18) 19(3-12), 22(40-0), 47//2 (3-7), 9(0-5) total Rakba 13 Bighe 2 Biswa. The Ops also committed that the possession would be offered to the prospective buyers latest by 30.09.2013. The Ops also committed that they would provide the facilities as mentioned in para 3 of the complaint. The complainants visited the Ops before booking and it committed that the Ops were having all the required sanctions/permissions/ approvals from the Competent Authority etc. and hence the Ops were having fully legal status to do the business and sold the flats to the General Public. The said permissions were not shown to the complainant, but commitment was made that the same would be shown in due course. The complainant booked a flat No.6C, second floor, Block A, consisting of 2 Bedrooms, Drawing Dinning Hall, Semi Modular Kitchen with super area of 1100 sq. ft. for Rs.23,00,000/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (Annexure C-2 to C-5) to the Ops. Agreement to sell dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties but the agreement/allotment letter does not contain the proper/complete elaborate terms and conditions, commitment made by the Ops at the time of booking. The agreement was totally silent regarding maintenance works agency, regarding providing of electricity connections, security agencies and also it did not have any date for completion of flat. The complainants visited the office of Ops in the first week of October, 2013 and saw that there was no development made by the Ops. The complainant contacted the Director of Ops who told that there was some objection by the Government and the same has been removed and the file is under consideration and as soon as the same was cleared, work at site would resume. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Ops many times but lame excuses were being given by the Ops. The complainant enquired the matter and came to know that there was dispute of the land between the Ops and 3^rd parties and the title of the Ops was not cleared. The complainant further came to know that flats have been sold without change of land user and without obtaining proper consents from the competent authority. The project of the Ops was not approved by the Government of Punjab and no license was issued to the Ops nor any registration certificate. The layout plan was not approved by the Authorities and the Ops have not forwarded the external development charges to the Government nor have bank guaranties etc. been given to the electricity department. Hence, the Ops are not in the position to offer possession of flat in near future. Thereafter, the complainants visited the office of Ops in the month of February, 2014, March, 2014, July, 2014 and lastly second week of August, 2014 seeking for refund of entire amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum plus compensation but the Ops refused to refund the amount of the complainant. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The authorized representative-Sumit Dhiman for the Ops appeared on 26.02.2015. Vikas Nagpal-Manger appeared on 10.03.2015 and sought time for filing written statement. Again on 20.03.2015, Sumit Dhiman-authorized representative appeared before but no written statement has been filed. On his request, the case was adjourned to 26.03.2015 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 26.03.2015, there was no appearance on behalf of the OPs and no written statement has been filed. However, the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.03.2015.
3. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident that the complainant booked a flat No.6C, second floor, Block A, consisting of 2 Bedrooms, Drawing Dinning Hall, Semi Modular Kitchen with super area of 1100 sq. ft. for 23,00,000/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (Annexure C-2 to C-5) to the Ops. Agreement to sell dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure C-6) was executed between the parties. The grievance of the complainant is that the agreement was totally silent regarding maintenance works agency, regarding providing of electricity connections, security agencies and also did not have any date for completion of flat. The complainant visited the office of Ops in the first week of October, 2013 and saw that there was no development made by the Ops. The complainant contacted the Director of Ops who told that there was some objection by the Government and the same has been removed and the file is under consideration and as soon as the same was cleared, work at site would resume. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Ops many times but lame excuses were given by the Ops. The complainant enquired the matter and came to know that there was dispute of the land between the Ops and 3^rd parties. The complainant further came to know that flats have been sold without change of land user and without obtaining proper consent from the competent authority. The project of the Ops was not approved by the Government of Punjab and no license was issued to the Ops or any registration certificate. The Ops have also not forwarded the external development charges to the Government nor have bank guaranties etc. been given to the electricity department. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Ops many times for seeking the refund of entire amount alongwith interest but to no avail. The complainant has also filed duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. The justice delivery system postulates adjudication after the rival parties file their pleadings and make their presentation, thereby enabling the Judicial Forum to adjudicate. A party which does not file pleadings, disables effective adjudication. A party which does not controvert the case of the party opposite is deemed to concede it. In the case of a DCF, the evidence is adduced by the parties in the form of pleadings. If the Ops do not file pleadings and/or affidavit in support thereof, it can be legitimately inferred that they are not in a position to contest the claim of the complainant.
7. In view of the fact that the Ops neither responded to the legal notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise congnizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the Ops had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint has also the affidavit in support thereof.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the entire amount of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of the payment by the Ops till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

27.04.2015       ANIL SHARMA      ANITA KAPOOR             DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT