Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/586

Rachhnna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Phoenix Infra Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 586 of 01.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   21.03.2016

                              

Rachhnna wife of Sh.Ajay Tandan resident of H.No.B-XXXIV/10066/1, Kartar Avenue, Near Ramsharnam, Haibowal, Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Phoenix Infra Pvt. Ltd., registered office at SCO-3, Ist Floor, Model Town Extn., Ludhiana though its authorized signatory Mr.Harpreet Singh.

2.Mr.Pranab, Authorized representative/Director/Manager/Partner M/s M/s Phoenix Infra Pvt. Ltd., registered office at SCO-3, Ist Floor, Model Town Extn., Ludhiana.

3.Mr.Harpreet Singh, Authorized signatory of M/s Phoenix Infra Pvt. Ltd., registered office at SCO-3, Ist Floor, Model Town Extn., Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :       In person

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Mrs.Rachhna against Ops by claiming that OP1 is a registered company and OP2 and OP3 are its authorized signatories. OP1 undertook to start the project of RC Colonizer, Ludhiana for developing Group Housing/Township at village Dulon Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana in land measuring 8.25 acres. Complainant, on being allured by the representative of OPs, entered into an agreement dated 6.6.2014 with OPs for the purchase of flat bearing Unit No.3 in Block-J at ground floor having super area measuring 1210 sq.ft. As per that agreement, the complainant had to pay Rs.32,62,290/- + Rs.1,22,790/- as per schedule Part-I and Part-II of Agreement. Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the OPs from the complainant on 17.02.2014 at the time of   booking of the flat. Rs.6,59,128/- was paid on 29.06.2014 by complainant to OPs. So, complainant has paid the amount of Rs.8,09,128/- to OPs. Agreement dated 6.6.2014 was got signed from the complainant under pressure because she has already paid the above referred amount. OPs bound to complete the flat within a year, but even after one year, wall even has not been constructed by the OPs. On persistent requests made by the complainant, OPs apprised the complainant that said project is not likely to be completed soon. Thereafter, complainant requested OPs orally to inform him about the status of the construction, but OPs in reply to the communication, advised the complainant to have flats at Khanna or Amritsar because the project of OPs at Ludhiana is not likely to be completed soon. It is claimed that Ops have illegally and wrongfully withheld the paid consideration amount. Legal notice dated 24.8.2015 was even got served through counsel for calling upon the OPs to make the payment of the deposited amount, but to no effect. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for grant of compensation of Rs.2 lac on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

2.                Notice of the complaint issued to OPs, but none appeared for OPs and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.12.2015.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but only oral arguments heard and records gone through carefully.

5.                Ex.C1 is the agreement arrived at between the complainant and OP1 and OP2 through authorized signatory Mr.Harpreet Singh, who is OP3. As OP3 acted as agent of OP1 and OP2 and as such, the amount was received by Op3 for and on behalf of OP1 and OP2. Being so, liability of OP1 and OP2 as principal will be joint and several, but that of OP3 will not be there because he acted in the discharge of agency relationship.

6.                In pursuance of the agreement Ex.C1, complainant had already deposited the amount of Rs.8.09,128/- is proved by the produced receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited on 17.02.2014, but Rs.6,59,128/- on 29.5.2014. Even after deposit of this amount, construction has not been started by the OPs and as such, it is obvious that the complainant was divested of her hard earned money for period of more than 1 year and 6 months until the presentation of the complaint. Legal notice Ex.C4 through postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 even was served, but to no effect. Ex.C12 is the copy of statement of account showing the deposit of above referred amount from the account of the complainant in the account of OPs. No construction activity has been started on the spot is a fact borne from perusal of photographs Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 produced in ex-parte evidence. Rather, contents of complaint and supporting affidavit Ex.CA establishes that OPs themselves claimed as if the project at the site in question not likely to    be completed soon and as such complainant may opt for alternative location at Khanna or Amritsar. That representation made by the OPs itself reflect as if OPs not interested in completing the construction at the earliest and if that be the position, then the complainant cannot be forced to accept the alternative site. Withholding of deposited amount of Rs.8,09,128/- by the OPs, as such, is an act of unfair trade practice and also of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, oral prayer made by the complainant liable to be accepted that she is entitled for the refund of deposited  amount  along  with  interest  @8%  p.a.           w.e.f.30.05.2014 because last deposit through receipt Ex.C3 was made on 29.05.2014. Interest @8% allowed by keeping in view the fact that nationalized banks also allows interest @8% on the FDR’s and further,because complainant has to suffer mentally due to withholding of her hard earned money. As allurement of the complainant for purchase of the flat was in the hope that she will get the flat at earliest and became owner, but that allurement remained illusion due to non starting of the construction by the OPs and as such, hefty amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- should be allowed, so that Ops in future may not trap the other gullible. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- even more needs to be allowed by keeping in view the fact that complainant had to suffer due to in-action of OPs even after service of notice Ex.C4 through postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP1 and OP2 will return the received amount of Rs.8,09,128/- to the complainant with interest @8% p.a. from 30.05.2014 onwards till recovery. Payment be made within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP2. However, no relief granted against OP3 because he is agent only. Payment of compensation and costs be made within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.03.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.