Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/26

Chaman Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nature Heights Infra Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sofia Paul

31 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  26 of 18.04.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    31.07.2019

 

 

Sh. Chaman Lal, son of Sh. Parkash Singh, resident of VPO Banah, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited, 9 Sunder Nagari, Near Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar, through Director/Managing Director/Manager/ Authorized signatory
2. Sh. Neeraj Thatai @ Neeraj Arora, Managing Director of Nature Heights Infra Limited, resident of Street No.9, Sunder Nagari, Near    Children Park, Hanumangarh Road, Abohar, 
3. Nature Heights Infra Limited, through Sh. Jasvir Singh, Branch Manager, Opposite Sabzi Mandi, Nuhon Colony, Tehsil & 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.37,500/-;  to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of misc. expenses incurred by the complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; 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 of 2699 Sq. ft by paying Rs.37,500/-. After depositing of Rs.37,500/-, the complainant visited the O.Ps but without any outcome. Till date, neither the O.Ps. are 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 receipt Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 and copy of envelop Ex.C3 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.    The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. as O.Ps. received Rs.37,500/- on 13.06.2013. The complaint deserves to be allowed.

7.    The complainant in support of his claim relied upon the documentary evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. The receipt Ex.C1 was issued by the O.Ps. with stamp of Ropar. Further after notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. Claim of the complainant is exparte. So, it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

8.    In the complaint as well as in affidavit it is pleaded by Sh. Chaman Lal that there was a plot on behalf of O.Ps. i.e. why the complainant booked the plot and paid Rs.37,500/- on 13.06.2013. Beside the said pleadings, the complainant placed on file Ex.C1 i.e. receipt dated 13.6.2013 vide which the payment of Rs.37,500/- was made. Beside the said evidence, the complainant placed on file the legal notice, copy of the same is Ex.C2. After filing the complaint, notice was issued to the O.Ps. but none appeared on their behalf. Thereafter, the publication process for the due service was adopted. O.Ps. served through the publication but none appeared.   So, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and the complaint deserves to be allowed.

9.    In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed exparte with the directions to the O.Ps. to refund Rs.37,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit i.e. Rs.37,500/- on 13.06.2013.

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.31.07.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                      (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER