Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/115/2024

BIMLA RANI, W/O SHANGARA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SISWAN PARADISE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

05 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/115/2024
Date of Institution	:	28/2/2024
Date of Decision	:	5/9/2024

 

Bimla Rani, W/o Shangara Singh Rio Village Munak Khurd, District Hoshiarpur, C/o Harbans Singh Sarpanch, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1. M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director Present Address Emerging Heights 3, Sector 115, Kharar - Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab, 140501. Earlier Address SCO No. 46-47, 1^st  Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009.

2. M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address Emerging Heights 3, Sector 115, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab, 140501. Earlier Address SCO No. 46-47, 1^st  Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh-160009.

3. The National Co-Op Nat Credit Society Ltd., Present Address Emerging Heights 3, Sector 115, Kharar Landran Road, Mohali, Punjab, 140501. Earlier Address Shop no. 3, Sante Majra, Opposite Divine World, Kharar, District Mohali through its Authorized Signatory/Director.

4. Sanjeev Wadhwa @ Sanjeev Kumar, Eligible Channel Partner/Agent, WC Code-0215 of M/s Emerging India Real Assets Pvt. Ltd, C/o Ravi Kumar, R/o Flat No. 3-A, Ground Floor, Garden Villa, Near Indane Gas Agency, Zirakpur. SAS Naga, Mohali, Punjab.

...OPPOSITE PARTY(S)

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for complainant (through VC)
	:	OP  NO.1, 2&3 exparte .
	:	Sh. Ishant Khangwal, Advocate for OP  No.4

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant approached and allured by Opposite Party No. 4 who is an agent of Opposite Party No.1&2 by distributing brochures and pamphlets for Group Housing project namely Siswan Paradise at Mirzapur. The Copy of Brochure is annexed as ANNEXURE C-1 The Complainant applied for Residential plot measuring 605 Sq. Yds. for personal use and occupation of her family members. As per the Payment Plan A of the Brochure, the price of the residential plot  was Rs.5,50,000/- whereas as per payment plan B the buyer will get discount of Rs.1.00 lakh  if the buyer chooses to pay in lump-sum. The complainant had opted the payment plan B of the brochure and  paid Rs.2,00,000/-  on 6.11.2015 to the Opposite party No.4. However, Opposite party No.4 had not provided the receipt  to the  aforesaid payment by intimating the complainant that the residential plot of 605 Sq. yd.  is booked with OPs. After sometime the complainant was informed by the OPs that due to some difficulty the OPs are not able to deliver the possession to the complainant and asked the  complainant to adjust the amount already paid in their another project. The complainant did not agree to the illegal demand of the OPs  and asked to refund the paid amount. However instead of refunding  the amount the OPs offered to convert the amount into FDR with Opposite party No.3.  i.e. the National Co-P NAT Credit Society Ltd.,  the sister concern company of Opposite Parties No.1&2. The complainant being left with no other option agreed to put the amount into FDR with Opposite party No.3 for the period of 66 months from the date of actual payment i.e. 6.11.2015 at the interest rate of 13.39% in the mode of operation as single installment. The Opposite party had issued  the deposit confirmation receipt dated 18.11.2015 alongwith A/c No. FD0401500008 with maturity date 5.5.2021 with maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh and the copy of deposit confirmation receipt is annexed as Annexure
      C-2.  In the month of May 2021 when the complainant approached Opposite party No.3 to return back the maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh she was shocked to see that office of Opposite party No.3 is already closed. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact Opposite Parties No.1,2 and 4  but their office was also found closed. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter Annexure C-3 to Opposite party No.2  on its last known address but to no avail. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. Opposite party No. 1 to 3  were properly served and when Opposite party No.1 to 3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service,  vide order dated 8.4.2024 Opposite party No.2 was proceed exparte whereas Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 30.8.2024. .
   3. Opposite party No.4 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action. It is alleged that the answering Opposite party is the employee of Opposite party No.2 and the complainant himself approached the answering Opposite party for  residential plot and the  answering Opposite party advised the complainant to contact the sales person of the Opposite party No.1 and as such the  answering Opposite party has no role in the complaint filed by the complainant.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   4. Rejoinder not filed  on behalf of the complainant.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that initially the complainant applied for Residential plot with the Opposite Parties measuring 605 Sq. Yds. for personal use and occupation of her family members and paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the OPs but later on the Opposite Parties shown their inability to deliver the residential plot to the complainant and converted the amount paid by the complainant in  FDR with Opposite party No.3 for the period of 66 months from the date of actual payment i.e. 6.11.2015 at the interest rate of 13.39% in the mode of operation as single installment and issued  the deposit confirmation receipt Annexure C-2 dated 18.11.2015  and the FDR was to mature on 5.5.2021 with maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh  but when the complainant approached Opposite party No.3 to get back the maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh the office of Opposite party No.3 was found closed, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant, or the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of Opposite party No.4.
   2. Annexure C-1 is the brochure issued by the Opposite Parties, which indicates that the Opposite Parties have floated various plots of different sizes in their project whereas Annexure C-2 is the Deposit Confirmation Receipt which indicates that  the complainant deposited Rs.2.00 lakh in FDR with Opposite party No.3 for a  period of 66 months w.e.f. 6.11.2015 with interest @13.39%  which was to be matured on 5.5.2021 with maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh. Annexure C-3 is the letter sent to the MD of Opposite Parties  by the complainant requesting refund of maturity amount of Rs.4.00 lakh but till date the said amount has not been refunded by the Opposite Parties to the complainant.
   3. From the foregoing one thing is clear that the Opposite Parties have grabbed a handsome amount from the complainant  towards booking of residential plot but later on shown their inability to  deliver the plot but instead of refunding the deposited amount the Opposite Parties firstly duped the complainant by converting the deposited amount into FDR with Opposite party No.3 but when the complainant approached the Opposite party  for refund of maturity amount the same was not refunded by the Opposite Parties which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and they are liable to refund the maturity amount to the complainant.    
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and Opposite Parties   are directed as under :-

 

1. to refund ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from 5.5.2021 till onwards

 

2. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

 

 

3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

 

5. This order be complied with by the OPs  jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 5/09/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member