Rita Rani filed a consumer case on 10 May 2019 against M/S Nature Heights Infra Limited through chief Managing Director Neeraj Arora in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/123 and the judgment uploaded on 28 May 2019.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 123 of 27.11.2018
Date of decision : 10.05.2019
Rita Rani @ Reeta Rani, aged about 45 years, daughter of Ram Kishan, Resident of House No.19B, Police Colony, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh, permanent resident of Village Ballowal, PO Jhinjri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Amandeep Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant
O.Ps. exparte
ORDER
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.83360/- along with interest @ 16% per annum; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement till its realization in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the O.Ps. are running the business of Real Estate, constructing flats, developing colonies and selling the plots etc. on profit basis. In addition to that they are also running the deposit business like banks, financial institutions. The OP No.1 is the Chief Managing Director, O.P. No.2 is the Director and the OP No.3 is the Branch Manager of the M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited having its office at Nuhon Colony, VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. The O.P. attracted the general public at large by giving advertisement on the cable network and News papers etc. that they were going to present Nature Greens as Premium Residential Township in the form of a colony in Village Darbaan Khaas, Tehsil & District Pathankot in which they would provide internal sewerage, water supply, drainage, parks, club etc. It is further stated that O.Ps. induced the general public to book the plots with them in the said colony. On the allurement of O.Ps, the complainant also booked one plot of 2500 Sq. Feet for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- in the Ropar Branch. It was agreed between both the parties that the complainant/purchaser would be at liberty to pay sum in the installment of Rs.20840/- payable on or before yearly during six years. Complainant paid the first installment on 29.04.2011. The agreement for sale was also executed between the complainant and OPs on 08.05.2012. As per the terms and conditions of that agreement, the total period of payment was of six years. It was also agreed that the vendor/Ops would obtain all kinds of NOC, permissions and Income tax clearance by the time from appropriate authorities of Govt. As per the agreement after the expiry of stipulated period the complainant asked for the physical possession of the property. Thereafter complainant visited the proposed site and was shocked to know that there is no construction/demarcation of the plots in the said land. Even there was no boundary wall of the said land and the land was empty and complainant approached to the O.Ps and request for refund the amount of Rs.83360/- along with interest as per agreement but the O.Ps. did not refund the amount. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 to 3, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2019.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. Complainant counsel Sh. Amandeep Saini, argued that complainant is the consumer, sufficient evidence is on the file regarding deposit and O.Ps. were proceeded against ex-parte. The complaint deserves to be allowed with costs.
7. Complainant counsel referred the pleadings, receipts Ex.C1, Ex.C3 & Ex.C4, vide which complainant deposited Rs.62520/- on different dates. Then there is one agreement dated 08.5.2012, which is between the parties regarding confinement of yearly deposit and final payment was to be made within six years and the said years comes to an end May 2018. The Further agreement pass to late the following observations:-
"That if a good and marketable title is not made out due to any reason then the purchaser would be at liberty to rescind, the agreement and vendor would be bound to pay 16% per annum growth to his sums already paid within three months of the rescinding and demands. That if the purchaser himself/herself/itself does not want to get the Sale Deed Regd. willingly even in that condition refund of amounts along with 16% per annum growth will be payable to him/her etc."
8. After referring the above said part of agreement, complainant counsel made prayer that the O.Ps. neither cleared the title nor obtained NOC even not made income tax clearance. When situation is such then the complainant stopped further deposit of yearly installment and prayed deficiency is made out and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
9. After appreciating the totality of the document and appreciating the arguments, complainant deposited Rs.62,520/. In this way the complainant is the consumer. O.Ps did not make any improvement as per the agreement then complainant filed the complaint in the month of November 2018. O.Ps. did not appear despite notices and were proceeded against ex-parte. Qua the fraud committed some consumers got registered FIR No.59 dated 3.6.2016 against the O.Ps and its copy is Ex.C5. So complainant is able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. regarding the payment of Rs.62,520/- only. However, not placed on file any document qua the deposit of 3rd installment. So, the complainant is held entitled to Rs.62,520/-. The responsibility of the O.Ps. is joint because OP No.3 acted though in the capacity of Manager on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2. They are liable to pay jointly and severally.
10. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.62,520/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. Rs.20,840/- on 29.04.2011, Rs.20,840/- on 24.5.2012, Rs.20,840/- on 16.11.2014 with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
11. The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)
Dated.10.05.2019 PRESIDENT
(CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.