BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 84 of 23.07.2019
Date of decision : 07.02.2022
Saroj aged about 47 years, wife of Ashok Kumar, resident of Chandi Mandir Saket, Chandi Mandir Cantt, Panchkula (Haryana) and 2nd address House No.126, Ward No.9, Gharaunda, District Karnal (Haryana)
......Complainant
Versus
M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited, Head Office, 9, Sunder Nagri, Opposite Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar, District Fazilka (Pb.) through Chief Manager Director Neeraj Thatai alias Neeraj Arora.
M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited, Head Office, 9, Sunder Nagri, Opposite Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar, District Fazilka (Pb.) through Director Amit Kukkar
Jasvir Singh Branch Manager, M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited, Nuhon Colony, Village & PO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Amandeep Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant
O.Ps. exparte
Order dictated by Sh. Ranjit Singh, President
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with interest @ 16% per annum compounded growth as per the agreement; to pay Rs.20,000/- 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. No.1 attracted the general public at large by giving advertisement on the cable network and News papers etc that they were going to present premium Residential township in form of colony in Village Dhanera, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar in which they would provide internal sewerage, water supply, drainage, parks and club etc. It is further stated that O.Ps. induced the general public to purchase the plots with them in the said colony. On the allurement of O.Ps, the complainant had purchased one plot of 1000 Sq. Ft for a total consideration of amount of Rs.5,25,000/- 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.87,500/- payable on or before half yearly during six years. The agreement for sale was also executed between the complainant and OPs on 24.03.2012. 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.1,75,000/- 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. Even publication proceedings were completed against the OPs No.1 to 3 but despite service by way of publication, neither the OPs nor any body else have appeared on their behalf. Accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2021.
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.C4 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. After considering the overall circumstances whatsoever put before us by the learned counsel for the complainant itself reveals that the complainant agreed to purchase plot from the opposite parties and to this effect agreement for sale dated 24.03.2012 was scribed and copy of the same is proved on file by the complainant as Ex.C1 and as per agreement, the total area of plot was 1000 Sq. Ft and total price of the plot was agreed to be Rs.5,25,000/- and the total period was fixed 6 years. It is also mentioned in the agreement that the purchase would be at liberty to pay such sum in easy installment of 87,500/- on or before half yearly during six years. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, complainant deposited Rs.1,75,000/- with the opposite parties bearing receipts No.170973 dated 29.08.2013 & 47653 dated 18.02.2012 and the same are Ex.C2 & Ex.C3.
7. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the vendor would obtain all kinds of NOCs, permissions and income tax clearance by the time of registration of the property. Moreover, the actual and physical possession would be delivered at the spot only on registration of sale deed. But the case in hand, the complainant enquired about the said project from the local authorities regarding the clearance and sanctioning of the project as explained by the opposite parties, but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the amount along with interest since there is no sign of any project as shown by the opposite parties, but every time they kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.
8. We think that the aforesaid only condition itself shows that the opposite parties agreed to provide service in the shape of giving the actual and physical possession at the spot only on registration of sale deed. But, in the present case, the opposite parties have failed to hand over the actual and physical possession of the plot of the complainant.
9. Moreover, in this case the opposite parties despite service through publication did not come present and the evidence led by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged, so we find no ground to discard the exparte evidence of the complainant.
10. So under these circumstances, this Commission finds force in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted exparte and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.1,75,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit. The OPs are further directed to pay a compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The OPs be also directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
15. 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 (RANJIT SINGH)
Dated. 07.02.2022 PRESIDENT
(Mrs.RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
