The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that the complainant is the resident of aforesaid address. The OPs deals in real estate business of buying, selling, renting and operating of self owned or leased real estate such as apartment building and dwelling, non-residential buildings, developing and subdividing real estate into lots etc. He availed the services of OPs for buying plot measuring 4000 sq.ft,  vide  Ref Id-10034024 situated in Village Bringali, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab, comprised in Khewat and Khatoni Numbers, as fully detailed and described in para No. 3 of the complaint, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- . The OPs entered into an agreement of sale with him on dated 12.06.2012 which was handed over to him at Batala, where the Ops have a Branch Office and Ops have offices all over India and in Punjab. They have branch offices in Abohar, Jalandhar, Amritsar and Batala in District Gurdaspur.  It is further averred that as per the above said agreement, he was to make payment of the plots in 4 equal installments of Rs.1,75,000/- each in a period of 4 years and after the payment of full installments of a total price of   Rs.7,00,000/- of plot, the Ops were to hand over the possession of plot to him after getting the NOC and income tax clearing certificate from the concerned department. It was agreed that Ops will execute and register the sale deed in his favour after the payment of the sale price and after passing of 3 months from the date of payment of final installment and the expenses of registration of the sale deed were to be borne by him and Ops was to deliver the possession of the plot at the time of registration of sale deed. It was agreed that if they fail to execute and register the sale deed in his favour, they would be bound to pay 13% interest per annum compound growth to the sum already paid within three months of the rescinding and demands. He paid 4 installments of Rs.1,75,000/- to the OPs which was duly received by them i.e., first installment of Rs.1,75,000/- paid on 26.05.2012; second installment of Rs.1,75,000/-  paid on 26.05.2013;third installment of  Rs.1,75,000/- paid on 25.09.2014 ; and fourth installment of  Rs.1,75,000/- paid on 07.10.2015.  After receiving the full and final payment, the possession of plot was to be handed over to him by the Ops. He approached the office of OPs numerous times to fulfill their promise and execute of sale deed of the plot, but the OPs kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. In May 2016, he was flabbergasted to know that the Ops have swindled his hard earned money and have defrauded him and many other customers on the fake promise of delivering possession of plots to them. He  could not file the complaint in this Forum in time, as he was making serious efforts to either get the possession of plot from OPs or his amount back, but the OPs have run away swindling his money.  He has recently come to know that various FIR’s have been registered against the Ops for cheating many innocent buyers. Therefore, he is filing this complaint now after having left with no other option to get his money back. The delay is not intentional one.   The non-allotment of plots by the OPs to him after receiving the full and final sale price amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Due to non delivery of possession of plot by the OP, he has suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the OPs be directed to handover the possession of plot or refund  Rs.7,00,000/-  alongwith interest @ 13% compound interest as agreed by the Ops as mentioned in the agreement, from the date of deposit till the realization of the amount along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.      Notice of the complaint was given to the OP No.1 and 2, but despite service through publication in the ‘Chardhi Kala’ newspaper, the OP No.1 and 2 failed to appear and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.8.2019.

3.       Sh.Anand Mahajan, Advocate has filed an application for joining the proceedings on behalf of opposite party no.2 which was allowed on 29.10.2019 and he was permitted to join the proceedings of this case on the same day.

4.     After hearing the arguments on condonation of delay, we consider that the complainant is justified due to the reasons mentioned in application. Moreover, it is a continuing cause of action as the possession of the plot is still not handed over to complainant. In view of it, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and detailed arguments on the main complaint of both the parties have been heard and also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.      Complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.

6.     On the other hand, Sh.Sukhdev Kumar alongwith his counsel has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sukhdev Kumar Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/4 and closed the evidence.

7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.       After considering the overall circumstances whatsoever put before us by the learned counsel for the complainant itself reveals that the complainant agreed to purchase a plot from the opposite parties and to this effect agreement for sale dated 12.06.2012 was scribed and copy of the same is proved on the file by the complainant as Ex.C2 and as per agreement, the total area of the plot was 4000 sq.ft and its total price was agreed to be Rs. 7,00,000/- and the total period was fixed 4 years. It is also mentioned in the agreement that the purchaser would be at liberty to pay such sum in easy installments of Rs.1,75,000/- payable on or before yearly during these 4 years. It is further mentioned in the agreement that the vendor received Rs. 1,75,000/- as first installment  vide  copy of receipt No.69843 dated 26.5.2012 which is Ex.C-3. Ex. C4 is the copy of receipt  No.228782 dated 25.09.2014 for Rs.1,75,000/-; Ex. C5 is copy of  receipt No.261074 dated 7.10.2015 for Rs.1,75,000/-. The aforesaid receipts have been issued by the OPs in favour of the complainant-Jaswant Singh. Ex. C-6 is the copy of FIR, whereas Ex. C7 and Ex. C8 are the copies of news items.

9.        According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the vendor would obtain all kinds of NOCs, permissions and Income Tax Clearances by the time of registration of property. Moreover, the actual and physical possession would be delivered at the spot only on registration of Sale Deed. But in the present case, the complainant approached the office of opposite parties numerous times after the final payment of instalment for getting the possession of plot and execution of sale deed as agreed upon, but the opposite parties kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other.

10.        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 plot to the complainant after receiving the full and final consideration. 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 ex-parte evidence of the complainant.

11.      The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the receipts were signed by opposite party No. 2 and he was receiving the amounts from the complainant, even after knowing the fact that the Company is not functioning. That however would make no difference since he signed/issued the receipts on behalf of the Company and admittedly, the payment went to the account of the Company and not to his personal account. So, we are of the considered view that the liability is on the part of opposite party No. 1.

12.     So under these circumstances, this Forum finds force in the arguments put forth by the ld. counsel for the complainant and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted ex-parte and the opposite party no.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- within one month, failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid whole amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

13.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:               (Shri Raj Singh)                (Rajita Sareen)

September 02, 2019.              Member                     Presiding Member

MK