Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/71

Malagar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Nature Height Infra Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

13 May 2016

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       71

Date of Institution :  14.03.2016

Date of Decision :    13.05.2016

Malagar Singh s/o Mal Singh r/o House No. 387,Near Small Dharamshala, VPO Bishnandi, Tehsil Jaitu,  District Faridkot.                                                                                 

...Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Nature Height Infra Ltd, Near Bus Stand, Faridkot through its Manager.

2. M/s Nature Height Infra Ltd, Town aka Nature Farms and Real Estates Pvt Ltd, Street No. 9, Sunder Nagri, Abohar, Punjab through its M.D.

                                              ........ OPs

    

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Adv. Ld Counsel for Complainant,

   OPs  Exparte.

    

   (Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-with interest besides Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                                       Briefly stated the case of complainant is that Ops launched a scheme for attracting customers and advertised that if anyone gets deposited Rs.1,00,000/- or more with Ops, then, Ops would give interest at the rate of 18% per anum on deposited amount. Ops further advertised that Ops have launched a development project regarding aforementioned scheme at different areas in the state of Madya Pradesh and under this scheme, the consumer would get a plot in lieu of deposited amount if he wishes so. It was also advertised that Ops have taken necessary permission from all concerned authorities. In December 2013, an agent of Ops approached complainant and disclosed about the said scheme of Ops and on assurance of Ops, complainant deposited Rs2,00,000/-with Ops and Ops gave interest of Rs.3000/-in advance to him and took signatures of complainant on full payment cum sale agreement. Ops disclosed that after six years complainant would get a plot measuring 14400 square feet in lieu of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited by him and if he does not want to take the possession of plot, then he would get back his two lac rupees after six years and during that period, complainant would get interest at the rate of 18 % per month. Ops paid interest to complainant till May, 2015 and thereafter, they did not pay any amount to complainant. Complainant approached Ops many times with request to refund his amount with interest, but every time they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ops kept the complainant in dark as they have not taken any permission for floating such scheme. This act of OPs has caused financial loss, great harassment and mental tension to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

   3                     The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.03.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

   4                              Notice was issued to Ops and as per office report, RC received back, meaning thereby, Ops have full knowledge about complaint filed against them. Despite repeated calls till 4.00 pm nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of Ops on the date fixed, therefore, both OP-1 and OP-2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dt 27.04.2016.   

   5                           The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 and then, closed his evidence.

   6                               In the absence of any rebuttal, Ld Counsel for complainant in his exparte arguments vehementally argued that in December 2013, an agent of Ops approached complainant and disclosed about the scheme of Ops and as per scheme if anyone gets deposited Rs.1,00,000/- or more with Ops, then, Ops would give interest at the rate of 18% per month on deposited amount. It was also disclosed that Ops have launched a development project regarding aforementioned scheme at different areas in the state of Madya Pradesh and under this scheme, the consumer would get a plot in lieu of deposited amount if he wishes so. It is contended that complainant was told that Ops have taken necessary permission from all concerned authorities. On assurance of Ops, complainant deposited Rs.2,00,000/-with Ops and Ops gave interest of Rs.3000/-in advance to him and took signatures of complainant on full payment cum sale agreement. Ops assured complainant that after completion of six years he would get a plot measuring 14400 square feet in lieu of Rs.2,00,000/-deposited by him and if he does not want to take the possession of plot, then he would get refund of his two lac rupees after six years and during that period, he would get interest at the rate of 18 % per month. Ops paid interest to complainant till May, 2015 and thereafter, they did not pay any amount to complainant. It is further contended that since May, 2015, Ops have not made payment of interest to complainant. OPs neither returned the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-nor paid any interest on Rs.2,00,000/-as agreed by them. It is further alleged that complainant made many requests to Ops to make payment of his entire amount, but they did not make any payment. Ops have caused huge monitory loss to complainant besides causing harassment and mental tension. Counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. Complainant has stressed on documents  Ex C-1 to 3.

   7                                               As there is no rebuttal from Ops side, therefore, we have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

   8                                         From the careful examination of document Ex C-2, which is a Full Payment cum Sale Agreement executed in favour of complainant, it is clear that complainant made payment of Rs.2,00,000/-to Ops. On the face of it, it is clear that Ops entered into an agreement with complainant and both the complainant as well as Ops are bound by the terms and conditions of same. This document gives strength to the pleading of complainant that he paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Ops. Ex C-3 is the copy of pass book, justifying the position of complainant that he withdrew Rs2,00,000/-from his account for further depositing the same with Ops. These two documents are cogent evidence, authenticity of which cannot be ignored. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and it explains the grievance of complainant.

   9                              The main contention of complainant is that complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/-to Ops, but in turn Ops neither paid any interest to complainant nor gave possession of any plot as per their earlier promise, thereby deprived him of the interest on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is a trade mal practice on the part of Ops and amounts to clear cut deficiency in service. It is observed that agreement between complainant and Ops is executed in their office at Faridkot and payment is also made at Faridkot, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, this Forum is fully competent to settle the dispute arisen under its territorial jurisdiction. Ops did not appear in the Forum to contest the case and in the absence of any rebuttal, we fully agree with the arguments advanced by complainant counsel.

   10                                              All these documents prove that Ops have been deficient in services and they did not come up to fulfil the terms of deed, which is evident from Ex C-2. All this proves that Ops have caused great harassment to complainant by retaining his large amount of Rs.2,00,000/-depriving him of the interest, which was to be accrued on it. All this caused harassment and mental tension to complainant, which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses.

   11                                             From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, this Forum is fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in neither making payment of interest as agreed between the parties nor gave the possession of plot as per their promise and also failed to return the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- received from complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-to complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per anum from 1.06.2015 till realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs 3000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced in Open Forum

   Dated : 13.05.2016

                                            Member            Member                  President

             (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (Ajit Aggarwal)