DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.251 of 2016
Date of institution: 02.05.2016 Date of decision : 04.12.2017
Vijay Kapoor son of V.P. Kapoor, resident of House No.1403, 1st Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. BCL Homes Limited, through its Director Shri Gopal Bansal, Village Peer Mushallah adjoining Sector 20, Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Ramesh Singh, Accountant M/s. BCL Homes, Village Peer Mushallah, adjoining Sector 20, Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, Mohali, Punjab.
(Name of OP No.2 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 12.10.2016).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri D.S. Soundh, counsel for the complainant.
None for the OP No.1.
Name of OP No.2 already deleted.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Vijay Kapoor has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant is working as Deputy Manager in State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh. On the allurement of the OPs, the complainant agreed to purchase a plot measuring 200 sq. ft. in their upcoming project namely BCL Homes, Peer Mushalla, Zirakpur. The OPs had fixed the sale consideration of the plot for Rs.22,00,000/- and gave discount of Rs.7,50,000/- and thus fixed the total sale consideration of the plot as Rs.14,50,000/- The OPs further assured the complainant that possession of the plot would be handed over within six months from the date of booking. On demand of the OPs, the complainant issued two cheques dated 20.04.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/- each and another cheque dated 20.04.2012 for Rs.1,00,000/-. The cheques were duly encashed by the OPs and the OPs issued receipt of the payment. The OPs also assured that the complainant will get the allotment letter of the plot and will execute the sale deed within 15 days from the date of booking but till today the OPs have neither issued allotment letter nor executed any agreement to sell. The complainant number of times contacted the OP and also visited their office but the OPs did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. On 28.05.2013 the complainant visited the office of the OPs where OP No.1 assured the complainant that approval for his allotment has been received from the company and he asked the complainant to bring original receipts of payment so that further proceedings could be initiated. The complainant accordingly brought the receipts and handed over the same to the OPs but the OPs took the original receipts and asked the complainant to come after one week. After one week the complainant visited the OPs and asked for allotment letter but the officials of the OPs stated that they have not received the approval from the competent authority and they cannot allot the plot and asked the complainant to come after 15 days to take back his money alongwith interest. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OPs many a times but every time they gave false assurance for returning the amount and lastly in April, 2015 they refused to return the amount alongwith interest and further refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The complainant had earlier filed complaint before this Forum which was dismissed in default on 19.06.2015. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 20.04.2012 till realisation; compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP No.1 by filing reply, in which it has raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that this reply is being filed by one of its Director Tajinder Bansal as no director by the name of Gopal Bansal exist or existed in BCL Homes Limited. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the earlier complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default on 19.06.2012 and no revision or appeal has been preferred by him to restore the same. The complainant is not a consumer as no allotment letter has been issued to him by the OP and thus relationship of consumer and service provide exists between the parties. The complainant was time and again called upon to turn back to enter into the agreement to sell in order to settle the terms and conditions which he deliberately avoided. The complainant has concealed material facts as on the demand of the complainant the amount has been refunded to him after he submitted the original receipts. On merits, the OP No.1 has denied the averments of the complaint and has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1 and copies of receipt Ex.C-1 and C-2. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Tajinder Kumar Bansal its Director Ex.OP-1/1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings, evidence of the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the OPs vide three receipts dated 20.04.2012 Ex.C-1 to C-3. The complainant visited the office on 28.05.2013 for issuance of allotment letter and Accountant of OP No.1 asked the complainant to bring original receipts so that process for allotment letter could be initiated. Learned counsel submitted that the OP No.1 received the receipts from the complainant but assured to issue the allotment letter and later on informed the complainant that they cannot issue allotment letter and refund of the amount would be made to the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that till date the amount has not been refunded to the complainant.
6. On the other hand the OP No.1 in the written statement has specifically pleaded that after persistent demand of the complainant the complainant was refunded the amount so paid by him after he submitted the original receipts. Thus the OP has pleaded in the written statement that the complaint is not maintainable.
7. After going through the record and we feel that the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner, as in order to prove the case, it will require voluminous evidence which includes oral and cross examination etc, in order to come to a conclusion as the complainant has stated that he has not received the payment and the OP has taken a plea in the written statement that the amount has been refunded to the complainant after he submitted the original receipts. We may in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum. Accordingly, we are unable to decide the case in hand on merits. Hence the complainant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) : 1995 3 SCC 583 for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. The present complaint is disposed of with the aforementioned observation. In case the parties require any requisite documents the same be supplied. Parties to bear the cost.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 04.12.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
