DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.672 of 2016
Date of institution: 07.10.2016 Date of decision : 06.12.2021
Sh.Archana Garg W/o Sh.Amarjit Garg, GH-76, Flat No.3, Sector -20, Panchkula.
…….Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Hanumanta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd through its Director, SCO 13-14, 1st floor, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave , Kharar, District, Mohali.
2.Mr.Anand Kumar, Director, S/O Sh.Manohar Lal # 596, Sector-4, Panchkula
3.Sh.Rajeev Singh Director, M/s Hanumanta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, SCO 13-14, 1st Floor, Sector 125, Sunny Enclave , Kharar, District, Mohali.
4.M/s Micro Homes Project, Village Jhandpur, Desumajra Road, Kharar, Punjab.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Shri Devinder Singh Soundh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Ashish Naik, cl for OP Nos.1 and 4
OP Nos. 2 and 3 ex-pare.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present complaint is filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that OP No.3 floated a scheme for allotment of residential apartments and flats under the name and style of “Micro Homes” . It is alleged that the OPs promised to give possession of residential units by a specified time, without intending to give actual physical possession. The OPs gave false promise. The CC was in urgent requirement of a residential unit and paid the demanded amount towards complete cost of flat. It is alleged that CC had paid Rs.13,00,000/- which is acknowledged in the sale agreement. It is also alleged that OPs promised to complete the flat within one year and give possession. OPs further promised to provide complete papers and documents of the flat to the CC. It is alleged that the OPs have failed to complete the construction and hand over the possession. The complaint of the CC is not signed by anyone. It is only signed by an advocate. Further the affidavit filed alongwith the complaint is also not signed by the complainant, though the same is attested by an Oath Commissioner.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the following reliefs:
1. OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum
2.To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment , Rs. One lac as punitive damages and Rs. 33,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen to remain ex-parte.
3. In reply, OP Nos. 1 and 4 have alleged that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands. It is alleged that it is a false and frivolous complaint based on forged documents prepared by the CC with other persons who had filed various consumer complaints in the Commission. It is further alleged that the CC formed a group and started filing false and fake complaints against the Director of OP No.1. It is alleged that CC has attached copy of FIR dated 10.08.2015, which was lodged by Sh.Anil Kumar Bhalla who is the main person behind the issues/controversies involving the OPs into various litigations. It is alleged that Anand Kumar has filed a complaint in the Court of JMIC, Kharar against some persons including the present complainant. It is specifically alleged that legal action be taken against the complainant who has created false documents and filed the complaint against the OPs in this Commission as well as at Panchkula. The alleged agreement dated 02.12.2014 is false and based on self made story. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, OP Nos. 1 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The CC in support of his complaint has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex CW1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 and C-2 and Mark-A. On the other hand, the OP has tendered in evidence affidavit of Anand Kumar Rampal Ex OP1/1
5. We have heard Ld.counsel for the complainant and OP Nos. 1 and 4 and have gone through the record minutely.
6. The CC has not signed his affidavit which is attached with the complaint. Even the CC has not signed the complaint for the reasons best known to him. We have perused the agreement Ex C-1. Surprisingly on the back of “full payment sale agreement”, there is one printed receipt, which appears to be vague, absurd and fabricated. There is nothing in the receipt that in which manner the money was allegedly transferred to the OPs. Even the column of witness Nos.1 and 2 is also vacant. There is no bank statement attached with the complaint. Even no cash receipts are attached. It appears that the CC has suppressed origin and genuine of the facts and the facts appear to be otherwise. It is possible that the story may be different and the CC has taken a chance to recover the money by filing this kind of complaint which is not even signed by the CC. In the absence of any proof of transfer of money, we cannot believe the genuineness of Ex C-1 which is also incorrect. Otherwise, we feel that this is a case where a detailed evidence is required and even cross examination of the parties is also required. In the absence of any cogent, trust worthy and reliable evidence, we feel that CC has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service or malpractice against the OPs.
7. In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. However, no order is made as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
December 06,2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
