DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 261 of 17.7.2018
Decided on: 14.8.2019
Sh.Budhram Singh S/o Sh.Nasib Singh R/o H.No.50-C, Darshani Bagh, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
…………...Complainant
Versus`
1. Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Sh. Neeraj Tathai Alias Neeraj Arora (Managing Director) 9, Sunder Nagri, Opposite Chikdren Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar (Punjab) .
2. Nature Heights Infra Ltd. through Sh.Amit Kukar (Director) 9, Sunder Nagri, Opposite Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar (Punjab) .
3. Nature Heights Infra Ltd.SCF 13, Dukhniwaran Sahib Road, Opposite Modern Senior Secondary School, Patiala (Pb).
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY:
Ms.Sofia Paul, Advocate: Counsel for complainant.
Opposite Parties: Ex-parte.
ORDER
B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER
1. This complaint is filed by Budhram Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against M/s Nature Heights Infra Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Parties).
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the OPs approached the complainant that they have launched a project at village Dhanera, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (Pb). On 4th April, 2012 the OPs sent an agreement to the complainant for the sale of plot Ref.Id No.10028663 for 1000 sq.ft. mentioning the full detail in the agreement for sale. The price of the plot was fixed at Rs.525000/- which was to be paid in 6 years on yearly basis installment of Rs.87500/-.
3. It is contended that the complainant applied for a plot for his residence purpose and paid first installment on 5.3.2012 at Patiala branch office duly acknowledged vide their receipt No.50221.
4. It is also contended that the GMADA issued a letter stating that the Nature Heights Infra Ltd. did not get any written approval for the said project. The OPs have to obtain all kind of ‘No Objection Certificates’, approved Maps, permission and income tax clearance from the Govt.
5. It is further contended that there was a condition mentioned in the agreement for sale that if a good and marketable title is not made out due to any reason then the purchaser would be at liberty to rescind and the vendor would be bound to pay 16% p.a. growth to the sums already paid within three months of the rescinding and demand. A legal notice was issued to OPs for refund of deposited amount but of no avail.
6. It is also averred that the OPs are working illegally and unethically. There is clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
7. By this complaint, the complainant has prayed for:
i. To refund the deposited amount of Rs.87500/- w.e.f. 5.3.2012 alongwith interest @16% p.a.till the date of payment.
ii. To pay Rs.2 lac on account of compensation for harassment and mental agony.
iii. To pay Rs.10,000/- on account of misc. expenses
iv. To pay fee Rs.20,000/-on account of litigation charges
8. On notice, the OPs failed to come present despite service and were accordingly proceeded against ex-part.
9. In evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents copy of agreement for sale,Ex.C1, copy of payment receipt , Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2017,Ex.C3, copy of envelop, Ex.C4, copy of reply to application filed under RTI, Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant asserted the same contentions as already pleaded in the complaint. Complainant has booked the plot in issue upon the allurement of OPs that they will develop the colony with world class facilities and deposited an amount of Rs.87500/- on 5.3.2012. OPs by not doing so have indulged in unfair trade practice, therefore, OPs be directed to refund the amount already lying deposited with the OPs alongwith interest.
12. The perusal of agreement to sell, Ex.C1 reveals that the complainant booked a plot with OPs for a consideration of Rs.87500/- which was paid on 5.3.2012 as first installment. This fact which is corroborated vide receipt, Ex.C2. Ex.C5 further reveals that the OPs were not granted any licence by GMADA to establish the colony in question. A legal notice dated 23.12.2017, Ex.C3 was sent to the OPs for refund of the deposited money, but the OPs neither responded to the ibid notice nor refunded the amount. Contentions of the complainant have gone un rebutted as the OPs instead of contesting the case have preferred not to appear before this Forum. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant.
13. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The Opposite parties did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains un rebutted . In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the opposite parties and an adverse inference is to be drawn against them.
14. While analyzing the receipt, Ex.C2 it is evident that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.87500/- on 5.3.2012. Since the OPs have failed to abide by the contract entered into with the complainant, therefore, they are liable to refund the amount to the complainant lying deposited with it alongwith interest. In catena of cases, where the complainants/ allotees have sought the refund of the amount deposited by them, due to delay in handing over of the possession of the units by the Ops, the Hon’ble National Commission has directed the builders/developers to refund the amount deposited by the allottee/investors/complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. It may be stated that in the case of Ms. Sneh Sood Vs. M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd., our own Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 23.2.2017, has held that “ if the promoter/builder fails to give possession in accordance with the terms of the agreement of a plot or an apartment then it is liable to refund the amounts already received in respect of the plot or apartment with simple interest @ 12% per annum, as per Section 12 of Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations Rules,1995, read with rule 17 of Rules framed there under. In view of the law laid down by the higher courts, in the present case also the complainant is entitled to get interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till the date of actual payment. He is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:
i. To refund the amount of Rs.87,500/-/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
iii. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
16. The OPs are further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
17. The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases
ANNOUNCED
DATED:14.8.2019
B.S.DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR
MEMBER MEMBER
