Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/36

Jatinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nature Heights Infra limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sofia Paul

14 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  36 of 18.04.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    14.08.2019

 

Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, son of Sh. Raghvir Singh, resident of #54/10, Gali No.10, Malohtra Colony,  Tehsil & District Ropar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited, 9 Sunder Nagari, Near Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar, through Managing Director/ Director/ Authorized signatory/General Manager/Manager
2. Sh. Neeraj Thatai, Managing Director of Nature Heights Infra Limited, resident of Street No.9, Sunder Nagari, Abohar, 
3. Nature Heights Infra Limited, through Sh. Jasvir Singh Branch Manager, Opposite Sabzi Mandi, Nuhon Colony, Tehsil and District Ropar 

   ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Ms. Sofia Paul, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.Ps. exparte 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.11760/-;  to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation; pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of misc. expenses incurred by the complainant; to pay Rs.10,000/- to represent/perusing the present litigation charges; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the complaint .

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the project of the O.Ps. was situated at Village Khedi Devnala, Tehsil Multai, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh, which was selling plots of different sizes at various prices. On the allurement of O.Ps, the complainant also booked one plot for a total consideration of Rs.37,500/-. It was agreed between both the parties that the complainant/purchaser would be at liberty to pay sum in the installment of Rs.560/- payable on or before monthly during six years period. After depositing the twenty one installments of Rs.560/- each, the complainant visited the O.Ps but without any outcome. Till date, the O.Ps. are neither available at their address nor have they any alternate address where the complainant can visit them for their grievances. Hence, this complaint   

3.    On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 to 3, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2019. 

4.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered copy of agreement Ex.C1, copy of receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C22, copy of legal notice Ex.C23,  envelop Ex.C24 and closed the evidence.

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant alleged that O.Ps. agreed to sell one plot vide agreement dated 06.09.2013 and paid Rs.11760/- on different dates. In support of the complaint, the complainant relied upon the agreement Ex.C1, receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C22 and copy of legal notice. After going through these documents, the forum considered that it is a consumer dispute, the complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

7.    Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. Complainant relied upon the agreement dated 06.09.2013, which was executed by O.Ps. in favour of the complainant. It is mentioned in the agreement that the total sale consideration was Rs.37,500/-, which was to be deposited in six years with monthly installment. Then complainant placed on file Ex.C2 to Ex.C22 copy of the receipts vide which complainant made the payment of Rs.11,760/- for the plot. The agreement has also a specific clause as follows:-

       "That if the project is not completed within six years due to any reason or the purchaser is not satisfied with the project he can rescind the agreement after the stipulated tenure and vendor would be bound to pay 16% per annum to his sums already paid within three months of rescinding".   

8.    The evidence led by the complainant is un-rebutted because the O.Ps. did not appear despite service. Even, the publication process for the due service was adopted. O.Ps. were served the substitute notice through the publication but none appeared. In this way, the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the complaint deserves to be allowed. The responsibility of O.Ps. No.1 to 3 is joint because OP No.3 acted though in the capacity of Manager on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2. They are liable to pay jointly and severally.

9.    In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.11,760/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. the respective dates of deposit.   

10.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                     (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.14.08.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                      (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER