Complainant Parbod Sood through his mother Smt.Kamal Sood  being his Special attorney through the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith compound interest @ 13% as agreed by the opposite parties as mentioned in the agreement, from the date of deposit till the realization of the amount alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith costs to her, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is resident of VPO Qila Lal Singh, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur and at present living in Germany. This complaint is being filed by his mother Smt.Kamal Sood being his attorney. He availed the services of opposite parties for buying a plot measuring 2000 sq ft, Ref ID-10027549 situated at Village Bringali, Tehsil Mukherian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab and opposite parties executed an agreement dated 8 May 2012. The opposite parties have offices all over India and in Punjab. They have branch offices in Abohar, Jalandhar, Amritsar and Batala in District Gurdaspur. The payment of the plot was to be made in 4 equal installments at the rate of Rs.62,500/- each in a period of 4 years and after the completion of full installments of a total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-, the opposite parties will hand over the possession to the her after getting the NOC and income tax clearing certificate from the concerned department. The opposite parties entered into a contract with her and executed an agreement dated 8.05.2012 which was handed over to her at Batala, where the opposite parties have a Branch office. She has further pleaded that it was agreed that the opposite party will execute and register the sale deed in her favour after the completion of the sale price after passing of 3 months and the expenses of registration of the sale deed will be borne by her and the opposite party will deliver the possession of the plot at the time of the registration of the sale deed. It was also agreed by the opposite party that if the opposite party will fail to execute the register the sale deed in her favour, the opposite party would be bound to pay 13% per annum compounded growth to the sums already paid within three months of the rescinding and demands. She paid 4 installments of Rs.62,500/- each to the opposite parties which was duly received by them. After receiving the said amount, the opposite parties issued receipt dated 15.02.2012, receipt no.155806 dated 24.6.2013, 213801 dated 14.5.14 and 249523 dated 17.4.2015. After receiving the full and final payment by the opposite parties, the possession was to be handed over to her by the opposite party but she was shocked when she came to know that opposite parties have swindled her hard earned money and that they are habitual criminals of cheating innocent people on the pretext of giving plots to them. The non allotment of plots by the opposite parties to her after receiving the full and final amount is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice issued to opposite party no.1 had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.1. Hence, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.6.2016.

4.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.2 who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.2 and the police of various police stations registered different FIRs against the Opposite party no.1. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.2 did not receive any amount of Rs.62,500/- in four installments nor agreed for handing over the possession or getting the NOC or income Tax clearance certificate. The opposite party was only an employee and he did not receive any amount from the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Kamal Sood attorney of Parbod Sood Ex.C1, aongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

6.       Sukhdev Kumar opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OPW-2/A, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP-2/22 and closed the evidence.

7.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while at the same time also taking the due judicial-notice of the OP1 service provider/real estate colonizer vendor’s intentional option to ‘ex-parte’ proceedings by way of non-participation, in spite of the ‘proven’ summon-service through the prescribed procedure by ‘Registered AD’ post. Although, it has been a settled law that a titled party’s intentional absence/ex-parte participation gives rise to the judicial but discretionary presumption that the ex-parte/absentee(s) litigant(s) has no eligible defense to prosecute; still, we have provided a judicious opportunity to the ex-parte absentee OP1 vendor by way of a close examination and a fairly deduced ‘resume’ upon which to place/base the resultant award under the applicable adjudicatory statute.

8.       We find that the present complaint has arisen as a result of non-delivery/ refusal to hand over the promised possession of the residential plot of land (in terms of the agreement to sell) in spite of having received its full consideration as duly paid out by the present complainant as duly proved vide her affidavit Ex.C1 and as evidenced through money receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 in terms of the related agreement Ex.C2 & ID application Ex.C3.

9.       The Branch Manager Sukhdev Kumar of the OP2 Branch Office Batala has appeared through his counsel and has pleaded/deposed through his affidavit Ex.OPW-2/A that he had been an employee at the OP1’s Batala Branch and has confirmed the receipt of complainant’s consideration money at Batala through DD’s favoring the OP1 company drawn at Abohar along with copies of ‘22’ nos. of FIRs Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/22 registered at PS Abohar City at the instance of such-like victim consumers. Incidentally, it speaks of (rather proves) swindling of a large no. of consumers at the unworthy hands of the titled OP1 fraudster in the garb of ‘colonizer’ having his Head Office at Abohar with Branch offices in many other cities including one at Batala where part of the ‘cause of action’ did take place amounting to unfair trade practice including ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the titled OP1Vendor lining him up to an adverse award under the applicable statute.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party 1 Vendor/Service Provider through its Managing Director Neeraj Arora to refund the complainant’s consideration amount of Rs.2.50 Lac besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation for having suffered harassment etc within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders (directly in the complainants saving bank account only) otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of present orders till actually paid. The complainant is also directed to furnish her saving Bank account details to the OP no.1 within 15 days from the receipt of copy of orders.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President     

ANNOUNCED:                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

November 25, 2016.                                        Member.

*MK*