Mandeep kaur filed a consumer case on 07 Aug 2019 against Nature Heights Infra Ltd in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/28 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Nov 2019.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 18.04.2019
Date of decision : 07.08.2019
Sh.Mandeep Kumar, son of Sh. Lachhman Dass, resident of Village Banah, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar
......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.16,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum compounded growth; 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 2376 Sq. Feet for a total consideration of Rs.33,000/-. It was agreed between both the parties that the complainant/purchaser would be at liberty to pay total sum in yearly installments of Rs.5500/- each payable on or before six years. After depositing the three installments of Rs.5500/- 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 receipts Ex.C1 & Ex.C2, copy of agreement Ex.C3, copy of receipt Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5 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 2376 Sq. Ft plot vide agreement dated 27.04.2015 and paid Rs.16,500/- on different dates. In support of the complaint, the complainant relied upon the agreement Ex.C3, receipt Ex.C1, Ex.C2 & Ex.C4 and copy of legal notice Ex.C5. 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 27.04.2015, which was executed by O.Ps. in favour of the complainant. It is mentioned in the agreement that the total sale consideration was Rs.33,000/-. Then complainant placed on file Ex.C1, Ex.C2 & Ex.C4, copy of the receipts vide which complainant made the payment of Rs.16,500/- for the 2376 Sq. ft plot. The Further agreement pass to late the following observations:-
"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 seller would be bound to pay 16% per annum to his sums already paid within three months of rescinding".
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. were served the 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.
10. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.16,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f. the date of deposit i.e. Rs.5500/- on 09.04.2013, Rs.5500/- on 21.07.2014, Rs.5500/- on 20.07.2015.
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.07.08.2019 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.