Haryana

StateCommission

A/15/2015

OMAXE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH GUPTA

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      15 of 2015

Date of Institution:    07.01.2015

Date of Decision :     01.12.2015

 

1. M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, L.S.C., Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
2. Ms. Rekhi, A.G.M. of M/s Omaxe Limited at Omaxe North Avenue-II, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Through Shri Harsh Bhargav, Authorised representative, M/s Omaxe Limited, 7, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

Versus

 

1.      Narender Singh s/o Sh. Balbir Singh, Resident of H.No.275, Ward – 21, Teacher Colony, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

Respondent/Complainant

2.      M/s Parmod Kumar Dealer Parmod Kumar s/o Sh. Suresh Chand at 10/177, Mazid Mohalla, Old Sabzi Mandi, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondents. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Omaxe Limited and another – Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, are in appeal against the order dated November 27^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.59 of 2013 filed by Narender Singh-complainant/respondent No.1, was accepted directing the appellants/opposite parties as under:-

“……..it is directed that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall allot the flat to the complainant after taking into consideration the application form and the amount deposited by him on 22.11.2012 through cheque/draft, if any, as early as possible as per his seniority as per scheme of the respondent Omaxe Limited. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is also directed to make available the documents as required by the complainant in reference to his booking of flat/plot with them. It has been observed that the complainant has been harassed by the respondents a lot, hence, we direct the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Nos.1 & 2”.

2.      The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum averring that he booked a flat with M/s Omaxe Limited-Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to ‘the builder’) vide application dated 21^st November, 2012 (Exhibit P3) and paid Rs.11,57,000/- through cheque No.065580 dated 21.11.2012 (Exhibit P-4). However, the builder did not allot flat to the complainant.

3.      The builder/opposite parties No.1 and 2 contested complaint by filing reply stating that neither any application was submitted by the complainant for booking of flat nor any amount was paid, as alleged. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on the record, the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the builder as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Notice of appeal was served upon but the respondent No.1/complainant but none appeared on his behalf.  

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the complainant never booked any flat with the appellants/opposite parties nor any amount was paid by him, so the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

7.      The contention raised on behalf of the appellants is tenable. As per the complainant he has made the payment of Rs.11,57,000/- through cheque Exhibit P-4.  However, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to show that the said cheque was ever encashed or that it was handed over to the appellants/opposite parties. No receipt thereof has been produced on the record. The complainant could easily prove from his bank account the encashment of cheque and payment. However, for the reasons best known to him, the complainant has not led any evidence. In absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant had ever applied for allotment of flat by paying Rs.11,57,000/-. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.6,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 01.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL