BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.27 of 2017

Date of Instt. 25.01.2017

Date of Decision: 09.05.2018

1. Manjit Singh alias Manjit Singh Virk R/o 18 Oakdale Court, Kitchener, ON, Canada, N2P 2S9, previously permanent residents of 15, Malik Nagar, Kapurthala Road, Opp. Sports College, Jalandhar.

2. Rupinder Jit Kaur alias Rupinder Kaur Virk, wife of Manjit Singh Virk R/o 18 Oakdale Court, Kitchener, ON, Canada, N2P 2S9, previously permanent residents of 15, Malik Nagar, Kapurthala Road, Opp. Sports College, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. M/s Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd, B-111, Sector-5 Noida (U.P) India through its Managing Director.

1(A). M/s Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd, D-44, Sector-6, Noida (U.P.)

2. Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd, D-44, Sector-6, Noida (UP), through its Managing Director.

3. Shourya Green, Surya Enclave, Amritsar Byepass Road, Near Trinity College, Jalandhar through its GM/Office Head.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Manuj Aggarwal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

None for the OPs (Defence of the OP No.1 to 3 has already been Struck Off).

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that the complainants are NRI and at present residing at Canada. The complainants are previously permanent residents of 15, Malik Nagar, Kapurthala Road, Opp. Sports College, Jalandhar. The OPs purposed a scheme to sell the flat in a Shourya Green, Surya Enclave, Amritsar Byepass, Jalandhar and in their said proposal, they allured that the flat will be good for residence purpose or it can be sold on a handsome profit in coming short future. The complainants fell into OP's trap and became ready to purchase a flat for residence purpose. Complainants under the said allurement made an application to allot a flat to the complainant along with the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The OPs vide their initial allotment letter, dated 05.03.2006 notified to the complainant No.1 that they allotted a Flat bearing No.103, in a Block/Tower F-4 on first Floor Super Built Area 1565 Sq. Ft @ Rs.1400 per sq. ft. under their project Shourya Green at Surya Enclave, Amritsar Byepass Road, Jalandhar. As per the said letter, the basic price of the said flat was Rs.21,91,000/- and OPs also charged interest fee maintenance charges, to the tune of Rs.15,650/- and so, OPs quoted the total price Rs.22,06,650/-. Here, it is necessary to mention that complainant along with his application also made the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, so, in their allotment letter OPs claimed that the balance amount as Rs.21,06,650/-.

2. That however, after the negotiations, the total amount was settled as Rs.21,50,000/- and one agreement was also signed between the complainants and OPs. As per the said agreement/contract, the possession of the above said Flat would be delivered to the complainants upto October, 2008. However, the OPs even after the said contract did not supply the allotment letter to the complainants as per the signed contract/agreement, as such, the complainants under protest made the payment of Rs.2,30,000/- to the OPs i.e. second installment along with protest letter, which was duly received by the OPs official on 04.11.2006. It is necessary to mention here that the OPs provide the pamphlet qua schedule of payment at the time of the said settlement. The complainants had paid amount in different installments to the OPs. It has been clearly mentioned in the pamphlet of OP that possession of the flat will be given in the month of October, 2008, failing which OP will be liable to pay penalty @ 5% per sq. feet per month for the delayed period. After October, 2008, the complainants had been reminding the OPs to handover the possession of the flat as per their commitment, but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Even today the flat is incomplete and is not ready for delivery to the complainants. All the flats including the flat of the complainant is still under construction. The non-completion of the flat is admitted by the representative of the OP. Various reminder were sent by the complainants to the OP regarding handing over the possession of the flat since long and to pay the compensation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of default. The complainants also emailed to the officials/representatives of the OPs to this effect. One of the complainant, Rupinder Jit Kaur alias Rupinder Kaur Virk also met the representative of the OPs in the middle of April 2014 to know the status of their flat at Jalandhar. But she did not receive any satisfactory or confirmed reply regarding the possession of the said flat. The OPs never care to respond to the complainants of their above representations, emails and correspondences. The act and conduct of the OPs amount to negligence in services. However, due to their failure complaints suffered huge losses. Complainants are burdening of the interest amount as well as suffered a lot of tension. The complainants are also entitled for compensation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from October, 2008 till upto date. Due to the above said facts, complainants have suffered mental tension, harassment, inconvenience, financial loss etc. as OPs failed to provide the possession of the said flat to the complainants as per their commitment. There is deficiency in service and there is a series of negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to handover the possession of the flat to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for harassment and loss suffered to the complainant and further OPs be directed to return the amount paid by complainants along with interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of payment along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared through Sh. Sushil Mehta, Adv, but after getting 2-3 opportunities, OPs failed to file reply and ultimately, the defence of the OPs was struck off.

4. In order to prove its exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and further tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Pal Singh as Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence.

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

6. After hearing the arguments and from the scrutiny of the pleading of the complainant, it reveals that the complainant alleged that the OPs purposed a scheme to sell the flat in Shourya Green, Surya Enclave, Amritsar Byepass, Jalandhar and accordingly, the complainant applied for the said plot and also deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and one agreement was also signed between the complainants and OPs, as per the said agreement/contract, the possession of the above said flat would be delivered to the complainants upto October 2008, but the OPs did not supply the allotment letter to the complainant as per agreement and as such, under protest, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to the OP as a second installment under protest and thereafter, the complainant had paid amount in difference installments to the OPs. The OP also issued a pamphlet/brochure and wherein clearly mentioned that the possession of the flat will be given in the month of October, 2008, failing which the OP will be liable to pay penalty @ 5% per sq. feet per month for the delayed period. After October, 2008, the complainants had made so many request to handover the possession of the flat as per the condition mentioned in the brochure/pamphlet as well as incorporated in the agreement, but the OP has failed to deliver the possession of the flat till today and as such, the complainant is entitled for compensation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of default and further complainant is also entitled for return of the money deposited with the OP, with interest @ 18% per annum and complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for harassment and OPs be also directed to handover the possession of the flat No.103 and OPs be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.1,10,000/-.

7. In order to prove the above contentions, the complainants in their exparte evidence tendered the affidavit of one of the Manjit Singh alias Manjit Singh Virk Ex.CW1/A and an other affidavit of one Jaswinder Pal Singh Ex.CW2/A and allotment letter dated 05.03.2006 Ex.C-1 and photostat copy of the cheque dated 04.11.2006 Ex.C-2, Receipt issued by the OP, after receiving an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- Ex.C-3 and letter submitted by the complainant at the time of deposit of amount Rs.2,30,000/- under protest, is Ex.C-4 and price list issued by the OP Ex.C-5 and price list published by the OP Ex.C-6 and an other photostat copy of the cheque Ex.C-7, for amounting to Rs.1,61,570/- and copies of the email Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and legal notice Ex.C-10 and statement of account of the bank of the complainant Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13.

8. We have gone through the aforesaid documents placed on the file by the complainant and find that the main contention of the complainants is that as per agreement/pamphlet, the OP was agreed to deliver the possession of the flat in the month of October, 2008, but the OP did not obey the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said agreement or pamphlet. We have already referred the documents whatsoever placed on the file by the complainant, but the said agreement and pamphlet have not been brought on the file by the complainant for the best known reason, in the absence of the aforesaid two documents i.e. agreement/contract and pamphlet, we cannot construe whether there was any condition elaborated by the OP that the possession of the flat will be delivered in the month of October, 2008, if the undertaking of the OP is not proved on the file, then how we can say that there is any deficiency in service or harassment to the complainant because the act and conduct of the OP can be adjusted only from the undertaking/agreement, wherein the terms and conditions of construction of the flat and its delivery has been mentioned, but in the absence of agreement/contract as well as pamphlet, we are unable to reach to conclusion that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9. Apart from above, the complainant himself brought on the file copy of allotment letter Ex.C-1, but in the complaint, in para No.4, the complainant themselves stated that the OP did not supply the allotment letter to the complainant as per agreement/contract and accordingly, the complainant deposited under protest the second installment a sum of Rs.2,30,000/-, which was received by OP on 04.11.2006, but this version of the complainant itself falsified from the documents produced on the file by the complainant i.e. allotment letter dated 05.03.2006 Ex.C-1, if the allotment letter was not issued by the OP, then how, the instant allotment letter came into possession of the complainant and moreover, the date of the allotment letter is 05.03.2006, whereas the complainant alleged that when the allotment letter was not issued, then the complainant deposited second installment of Rs.2,30,000/- under protest on 04.11.2006, means after 8 months of the issuing of allotment letter. So, this version of the complainant is also not true.

10. We have also gone through the price list Ex.C-5 placed on the file by the complainant, wherein the deposit of installment qua construction linked payment is elaborately mentioned that whenever the amount is to be deposited, as per this list, the amount is to be deposited on a different stage that the 'start of foundation', 'start of ground floor', 'roof slab' etc., but the complainant has not deposited the amount as per detail given in the price list Ex.C-5. So, from any angle, we do not find any deficiency, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Though, the OPs are not appeared and did not oppose the version of the complainant, but it is not necessary that the claim of the complainant is to be contested by the other party rather the complainant is required to prove his case at his own legs without seeking any assistance from the OP. So, with these observations, we come to conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

09.05.2018 Member President