Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 611.
Instituted on : 27.10.2017.
Decided on : 12.06.2019.
Mohinder Singh aged 62 years s/o Sh. Sh. Pyare Lal R/o VPO Lahli, Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s PACL India Ltd., 7th Floor, Gopaldas Bhawan-28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, PACL India Ltd., Near Union Bank of India, Jhajjar Road, Rothak.
- Smt. Ram Bala w/o Sh. Raj Bahadur s/o Sh. Inder Singh Lambardar R/o VPO Baniyani, Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak(Authorized Agent of PACL India Ltd.).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rajbir Kashyap Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 has issued the application for plots and on dated 30.04.2009 an agreement had taken place between the complainant and respondent no.1 through resplendent no.3 who is authorized agent of respondent no.1. That complainant obtained an application no.4454278 and opposite party issued a registration no.U022225343 dated 30.04.2009 to the complainant for further reference. That the above said agreement was commenced on dated 30.04.2009 and the maturity date was 30.10.2014. That complainant had paid all the installments as per the agreement w.e.f. 30.04.2009 to 30.10.2014 through respondent no.3 and the total amount of Rs.62500/- was paid by the complainant upto 30.10.2014. That the respondents assured the complainant that in case they failed to provide the plot to the complainant, then they will pay the maturity amount of Rs.90920/- to the complainant alongwith interest as per agreement. That after depositing the full amount, complainant requested the opposite parties many times to refund the amount of Rs.90920/- or to allot the plot as per scheme but respondent no.1 neither allotted a plot nor refunded the amount as per agreement. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.90920/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to respondent no.1 through publication received back served but none appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.05.2018 of this Forum. Notice sent to respondent no.2 through Munadi but none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and as such respondent no.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.09.2018 of this Forum. Respondent no.3 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is wrong to say that the respondent no.3 promised that in case the respondent no.1 becomes unable to provide the plot to the complainant regarding this scheme, then the respondent no.1 will pay the maturity amount of Rs.90920/- with interest to the complainant as per agreement. That the respondent no.3 was under employment of respondent no.1 & 2 as agent and the agreement is an official document and the answering respondent disclosed the terms and conditions to the complainant at that time. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and respondent no.3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, respondent no.3 also did not appear before this Forum on dated 06.05.2019 and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.11.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that as per agreement Ex.C18, complainant had booked a plot for a consideration of Rs.62500/-on dated 30.04.2009 and he had to deposit the half yearly instalment of Rs.5750/- and the estimated realisable value at the end of term is shown as Rs.90920/-. Accordingly complainant deposited the instalments w.e.f. 30.04.2009 to 30.10.2014 vide receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C19. But after depositing the whole amount by the complainant, neither the plot has been allotted nor the maturity amount has been paid to the complainant. It is also on record that respondent no.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that respondent no.1 & 2 have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the respondent no.1 & 2 regarding not refunding the maturity amount stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, respondent no.3 as per his reply has alleged that respondent no.3 is only the agent of respondent no.1 & 2 and there is no liability of respondent no.3. As such, respondent no.1 & 2 are liable to refund the maturity amount to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the respondent No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.90920/-(Rupees ninety thousand nine hundred twenty only) alongwith interest from the date of maturity i.e. 30.10.2014 till its realsiation and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.06.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
