Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/486/2016

Nisha Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Siswan Paradisse Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Raman K. Sharma

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/486/2016
Date of Institution	:	05/07/2016
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2017

 

Nisha Thakur wife of Narottam Kumar Ghezta Charan Niwas, Frood House, Cementry Sanjauli Shimla (HP).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s Siswan Paradise Private Limited through M/s Emerging India Real Assets, SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-C, near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Emerging India Real Assets, SCO No.46-47, First Floor, Sector 9-C, near Matka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Raman K. Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

                                         

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member.

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the representative of OP-2 approached the complainant and told her that its sister concern company M/s Siswan Paradise Private Ltd./OP-1 is selling farmhouses at village Mirzapur in their proposed project namely Siswan Paradise. The complainant was told that the said project was approved by GMADA and if she booked the same, the possession would be delivered in 2015. On the basis of the assurance of representatives of OPs, the complainant booked a farmhouse measuring 2 kanals (1200 sq. yards) in the proposed project to be developed by OP-1 and she was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 7.11.2012.  The complainant paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,55,000/- vide receipts (Annexure C-2 & C-3). Vide letter dated 7.11.2012 the complainant was given the option to take the possession or to take buy back amount with appreciation of Rs.2,56,500/- over and above the principal amount. After completion of three years from 27.6.2012, the complainant approached the OPs on 27.6.2015 for refund of the principal amount alongwith appreciation amount, but, they refused. Further, the complainant has averred that she came to know that the project of the OPs was basically on forest land and could not be used for residential purposes. The complainant also found a public notice in a local newspaper in November 2014 published by GMADA informing the general public that the farm house sold by OPs was without taking the development licences from the authorities concerned. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OP-1 did not appear despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.10.2016. 
3.         Initially, Sh. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of OP-2 and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence. However, on 2.12.2016, neither the reply and evidence were filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
6.         In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 even did not bother to refund the amount paid by the Complainant despite her repeated endeavors. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.
7.         In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as under:- 

(i)     To refund the amount of Rs.8,55,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit(s), till realization.

(ii)    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainants for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

(iii)    To also pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the complainants as litigation expenses. 

8.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
9.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/01/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”