DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.299 of 2016
Date of institution: 20.05.2016
Date of decision : 07.02.2018
Randhir Singh aged 65 years son of Shri Amar Chand, resident of # 944, Phase 10, Mohali.
…….Complainant
Versus
M/s. Sky Rock City Welfare Society, SCO 672, 1st Floor, Sector 70, Mohali through Shri Navjeet Singh, President/authorised signatory.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri H.S. Parwana, counsel for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, a senior citizen, in response to the advertisement of OP applied for a plot of 100 sq. yards in Sector 111-112, Greater Mohali in the project to be developed by the OP vide application dated 16.12.2011. Cash amount of Rs.10,000/- as membership fee was deposited by complainant with OP vide receipt No.3266 dated 01.08.2011. First installment of Rs.2,97,500/- vide cheque No.141703 and receipt No.5625, but second installment of same amount of Rs.2,97,500/- vide cheque No.561767 through receipt No.6483 dated 10.02.2012 was deposited by complainant with OP. Another amount of Rs.2,97,500/- was deposited through cheque No.399125 vide receipt No.6722 dated 10.03.2012, but an amount of Rs.75,000/- more was deposited by complainant vide cheque No.561712 through receipt No.9860 dated 10.10.2012. In this way, total sum of Rs.9,77,500/- including Rs.10,000/- as membership fee, was deposited by complainant with OP. OP filed civil suit for permanent injunction in Civil Court at Mohali on 24.09.2015, where through it admitted having received above said amounts. Total price of the plot to be allotted to the complainant was quoted as Rs.11,90,000/-. No development of land had taken place, but depleted site of the project is lying at the spot. Complainant visited the project site on 01.05.2016 for finding as if there is no proper development and no pucca roads or the electricity poles existing on the spot. No proper arrangement for supply of drinking water even was made out. Rather the land earmarked for the project was full of bushes and pits. No labour work was done on the spot and nor any machinery was seen at the site of the project by complainant during his visit. Photographs of the site of the proposed project even were taken by complainant. Complainant was disclosed that OP has not purchased the entire land of the said project because few chunks of land were still in the hands of the original owners. Complainant claims that there is a doubt, if the OP has got approved the plan of the said project from any competent authority or it has obtained permission from the Govt. for Change of Land Use for the residential project. Despite approach to OP number of times, refund of the deposited amount has not been done and nor the plot allotted and that is why letters through registered post were sent to OP on 14.06.2013 and 27.06.2013 for seeking refund of the deposited amount. That even has not been done and as such by pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by OP, prayer made for directing the OP to refund the received amount of Rs.9,77,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.
2. OP is exparte in this case.
3. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-10 and Mark-A and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Written arguments submitted by complainant. Oral arguments also heard and records gone through.
5. Perusal of application form for membership Ex.C-1 alongwith receipt Ex.C-3 establishes that complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- with OP for becoming member of this society. Terms and conditions of payment of installments regarding allotment of plots to members of society are produced on record as Ex.C-2. Receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 are produced on record to establish that complainant paid amount of Rs.2,97,500/- on three occasions on dates 25.11.2011, 10.02.2012 and 10.02.2012, but Rs.75,000/- on 10.10.2012. So certainly complainant had deposited total amount of Rs.9,77,500/- (including Rs.10,000/- as membership fee) with OP in hope that he will get a plot allotted in the project scheme of OP society. However, that project scheme remained flop because no activity of development carried out on the spot is a fact borne from contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant and also photographs produced on record as Ex.C-8. After going through these photographs Ex.C-8, it is made out that bushes actually exist on the spot and no activity of construction work seems to be carried out. Being so, contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 are correct that no development carried out on the spot virtually. As there is no development activity on the spot and that is why complainant sent letters Ex.C-9 and C-10 through registered post to OP on 14.06.2013 and 27.06.2013 for seeking refund of the paid amount. Rather after going through Ex.C-9, it is made out as if complainant was disclosed through mobile conversation on 13.06.2017 that the project has been passed by authorities concerned. If this assertion contained in Ex.C-9 taken on its face value, then this means that in view of passing of project in June, 2013, the construction work or the labour work could not be carried out on the spot till 2013, despite the fact that above referred amount of Rs.9,77,500/- accepted from the complainant on above referred different dates uptill 10.10.2012. So certainly unfair trade practice adopted by OP by falsely pretending as if the allotment of plot will be done as per terms and conditions contained in Ex.C-2.
6. Complainant sought refund of the deposited amount through Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 on the ground that amount was deposited by him after contracting loan from market and money lenders who are harassing him and as such it is obvious that virtually complainant sought refund of amount under compelling circumstances. So it is not a case in which complainant sought refund of the amount voluntarily. Being so, benefit of condition No.4 contained in Ex.C-2 not available to OP. That condition No.4 provides that if an applicant/complainant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, then the entire amount paid by him will be refunded with interest @ 8% per annum after three years from the date of requisition. Present is not a case of seeking voluntary refund, but a case of seeking refund under compelling circumstance created by OP by not developing the site on the spot and as such in view of the fact that case of complainant governed by Clause-5 of Ex.C-2, he becomes entitled for refund of paid amount with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint namely 20.05.2016 till payment. Clause-5 of Ex.C-2 provides that possession of plot will be handed over physically not later than two years of registration/requisition. That registration of complainant as member of the society took place on 01.08.2011, when receipt Ex.C-3 was got issued by complainant by paying membership fee of Rs.10,000/-. So in case of non handing over of possession to complainant within two years, from the date of issue of Ex.C-3, the complainant should have started process for getting possession by 01.08.2013. However, this complaint was filed by complainant on 20.05.2016 and as such some fault remains on part of complainant also in not seeking refund at the earliest through process of Court/Forum, despite the fact that he issued notice Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 on 14.06.2013 and 27.06.2013. These facts show that complainant himself remained dormant in not filing the complaint within two years of issue of requests Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10. This is despite the fact that civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by OP against complainant by admitting as if the amounts referred above have been received by OP from the complainant. In the plaint of that suit, copy of which is produced on record as Mark-A, it is mentioned that dispute is raised of a plot by complainant on account of amount paid by him, but complainant himself is not ready to take possession of the alleged plot. This civil suit was filed on 24.09.2015 and as such it is obvious that OP took recourse of legal remedy first in time than that of filing of this complaint by complainant on 20.05.2016. In case denial is made by complainant himself of accepting the plot allotted to him, then fault lays with complainant in not accepting the allotted plot, but seeking refund of the paid amount by way of filing this complaint subsequently to filing of civil suit for permanent injunction by OP against complainant. Being so, complainant entitled to refund of paid amount of Rs.9,77,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint namely 20.05.2016 till payment. However, complainant stood harassed by OP because no response to Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 given and as such complainant entitled to be somewhat hefty reasonable compensation amount for mental agony and harassment, which certainly bound to somewhat higher because of his being a senior citizen.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with directions to OP to refund the received amount of Rs.9,77,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of complaint namely 20.05.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainants and against the OP. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order.
Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the appearing parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018.
Announced
February 07, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
