DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.228 of 2014 Date of institution: 04.04.2014
30.11.2015 Date of decision : 11.10.2017
Kewal Singh son of Gasita Ram resident of # 41 VPO Ayalki, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, Haryana.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Nature Farms and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office J-32, 1st Floor, Najafgarh Road, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi 110015 through its authorized representative.
2. Nature Farms and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., B/O Street No.9, Sundar Nagri, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar through its authorized representative:
Local Address:
Nature Farms and Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. through Orvis Developers Pvt. Ltd., SCO 46, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Deepak Goyal, counsel for the complainant.
OPs ex-parte
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Earlier this complaint was allowed ex-parte by this Forum vide order dated 30.01.2015. The Opposite Parties preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.01.2015 before the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 05.10.2015 while setting aside the order of this Forum dated 25.06.2014 vide which the OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte also set aside the final order dated 30.01.2015 vide which the complaint was ex-parte allowed and directed the parties to appear before this Forum on 10.11.2015. On 10.11.2015 none appeared for the parties and the case was adjourned to 30.11.2015 for further proceedings. On 30.11.2015 Shri Deepak Goyal, Advocate appeared for the complainant but none appeared for the OPs and the complaint was posted for 22.12.2015 for further proceedings. On 22.12.2015 also none appeared for the OPs and the complaint was adjourned to 22.01.2016 for appearance of the OPs. On 22.01.2016 none appeared for the OPs and the office was directed to issue notice through registered post alongwith AD to the OPs to appear and file written version on 02.03.2016. On 02.03.2016 the registered notice sent to OP No.1 received back from the postal authorities with the remarks ‘left’. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the order dated 05.01.2015 was passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in the presence of Shri G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the OPs when the parties were directed to appear before this
Forum on 10.11.2015. Hence ld. Counsel for the complainant prayed for issuance of notice to OP No.1 through Shri G.L. Bajaj, its counsel for 15.03.2016. Notice sent to OP No.2 was delivered on 08.02.2016 as per the tracking report retrieved from the site of India Post. None having appeared for it, OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.03.2016. Shri G.L. Bajaj, Advocate appeared in this Forum on 25.04.2016 and stated that he has not been engaged by the OP to contest its case before this Forum, as such he is not appearing in this Forum on behalf of the OP. However, he agreed to inform the OP about the next date of hearing before this Forum which was fixed for 30.05.2016. On 30.05.2016 Shri G.L. Bajaj, Advocate moved an application stating therein that Shri Neeraj Arora, MD of the OP is in custody and is lodged in Central Jail, Fazilka and that the office of the OP at Abohar is closed and no employee of the OP is available on the site of the said office of the OP. On request of learned counsel, summons of the MD of the OP were issued through Superintendent Central Jail, Fazilka for 26.07.2016. The summons could not be sent due to non availability of postal stamps for 26.07.2016 and on 22.09.2016 the case was adjourned to 01.12.2016 for issuance of summons. 01.12.2016 was declared holiday by the State Govt. and the complaint was adjourned to 23.12.2016. On 23.12.2016 Superintendent Central Jail, Ferozepur reported that Mr. Neeraj Arora has been granted bail and released from the jail on 18.06.2016. In view of this report, case was adjourned to 07.02.2017 for filing correct address of the OP. Registered notice sent to the OP was received back with the report ‘left the given address’ by the postal authorities. Thus, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2017 and the matter was posted for arguments.
2. The case of the complainant is that he approached the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) for purchase of 902.4 sq. ft. plot No.148 in the project of the OPs by paying Rs.4,41,188/- as earnest money in the month of November, 2012. An agreement Ex.C-2 was entered into between the parties. Thereafter the complainant visited the OPs on number of occasions to apprise him about the progress made in the project and the status of necessary approvals from the Govt. authorities but every time he was not given any satisfactory response. The complainant paid the next installment of Rs.5,51,485/- of the plot to the OPs in December, 2012. At that time the sale staff of the OPs told the complainant that he should not make the payment of next installments because there is no progress in the project and necessary sanctions are not being given by the Govt. and the project may be cancelled. The complainant requested the officials of the OPs to refund him the amount of Rs.4,41,188/- who assured him that the amount would be refunded with interest @ 8% to him. After about 6 months of that the OPs refused to refund the amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to refund Rs.4,41,188/- with interest @ 12% per annum; to pay him Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that that the complainant had paid Rs.4,41,188/- to the OPs for purchase of a plot No.148 in their project at Mohali. He further argued that the complainant came to know from the officials of the OPs that the OPs have not started the project as necessary sanctions were not being given by the Govt. and the project may be cancelled. The complainant requested the OPs to refund him the booking amount which the OPs have not paid him despite repeated requests.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant.
In the present complaint the total agreed basic sale consideration of the property is Rs.22,05,940/- as is evident from agreement for sale dated 12.12.2012 Ex.C-2 produced by the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 1 has observed that it is the value of the goods or services, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction in case titled as Ansal’s Woodbury Apartments Residents Welfare Association Vs. Ansals Housing & Construction Ltd. & another in First Appeal No.931 of 2016 decided on 16.05.2017 has also relied upon the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble National Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla Vs. Ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Thus in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and of the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum being beyond pecuniary jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby ordered to be returned to the complainant alongwith all the requisite documents placed on record. Further complainant is also granted liberty to approach the appropriate court of law/State Commission/National Commission for redressal of his grievances.
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: 11.10.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
