Harjinder kaur filed a consumer case on 31 Jul 2019 against Nature Heights Infra Ltd in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/21 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Aug 2019.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 18.04.2019
Date of decision : 31.07.2019
Smt. Harjinder Kaur, wife of Sh. Sardara Singh, resident of #08, Sun City Ropar
......Complainant
Versus
....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.2,54,520/-; to 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; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; 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 Dhanera, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, which was selling plots of different sizes at various prices. On the allurement of O.Ps, the complainant also booked one plot of 1500 Sq. Feet for a total consideration of Rs.3,37,500/-. It was agreed between both the parties that the complainant/purchaser would be at liberty to pay sum in the installment of Rs.28,280/- payable on or before half yearly during six years period. After depositing the nine installments of Rs.28,280/- each, 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 agreement Ex.C2, copy of receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C10, copy of legal notice Ex.C11 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 1500 Sq. Ft plot vide agreement dated 14.03.2012 and paid Rs.2,54,520/- on different dates. In support of the complaint, the complainant relied upon the agreement Ex.C2, receipts Ex.C1, Ex.C3 to Ex.C10 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.
8. 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 14.03.2012, which was executed by O.Ps. in favour of the complainant. It is mentioned in the agreement that the total sale consideration was Rs.3,37,500/-, which was to be deposited in six years with half yearly installment. Then complainant placed on file Ex.C1, Ex.C3 to Ex.C10, copy of the receipts vide which complainant made the payment of Rs.2,54,520/- for the 1500 Sq. ft plot. The Further agreement pass to late the following observations:-
"That if a good and marketable title is not made out due to any reason then the purchaser would be at liberty to rescind. The agreement and vendor would be bound to pay 16% per annum growth to his sums already paid within three months of the rescinding and demands. That if the purchaser himself/herself does not want to get the sale deed registered willingly even in that condition refund of amounts along with 16% growth will be payable to him/her.
9. 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. served 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.
10. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,54,520/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit i.e. Rs.28,280/- on 20.6.2011, Rs.28,280/- on +23.12.2011, Rs.28,280/- on 25.06.2011, Rs.28,280/- on 31.12.2012, Rs.28,280/- on 15.7.2013, Rs.28,280/- on 27.1.2014, Rs.28280/- on 01.08.2014, Rs.28,280/- on 02.02.2015, Rs.28,280/- on 09.07.2015.
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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.