BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.12 of 2017

Date of Instt. 06.01.2017

Date of Decision: 12.06.2018

1. Kewal Singh son of Pritam Singh Resident of 46 Stonhurst Road, Greatbarr, Birhmingum, U.K at present Resident of 76, Lane No.1, Friends Colony, Wadala Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Yashwant Singh son of Chanda Singh Resident of Village Dakirara, P.O. Fatehpur, Tehsil Fatehpur District Kangra.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. Niti Shri Infrastructure Limited, A1 Sector 4, Noida 201301 (U.P.) through its Managing Director/Partner.

2. Niti Shri Infrastructure Limited, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory/Proprietor/Partner/Director.

3. Shourya Towers Private Limited situated at Amritsar Bye-Pass, Near Trinity College, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

4. Shourya Greens at Surya Enclave, Amritsar Bye-Pass, Near Trinity College, Jalandhar through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Partner.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Naveen Chadha, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.

Opposite Parties exparte.

Order

Harvimal Dogra (Member)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant Kewal Singh under 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986' against the OPs, on the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants and be also directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for making deficiency in their services and for causing mental agony, harassment and loss to the complainants due to their said acts.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the OPs offered to sell the flat through publication/advertisement in the area known as Shourya Greens, Surya Enclave, Amritsar Bye-Pass, Near Trinity College, Jalandhar. The OPs promised to give the luxury apartments and offered to provide full facilities to their customers. That the complainant No.1 came into the glossy talks of the OPs and booked a flat at Shourya Greens, Jalandhar with his co-applicant Jagdish Singh @ Rs.1955/- per square feet for a total sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. That the complainant No.1 was allotted a flat No.B-3/604 under the scheme of Shourya Green, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the allotment letter was issued on 26.04.2007. Thereafter, the other co-applicant Jagdish Singh relinquished his right in favour of the complainant No.1 by way of affidavit dated 18.12.2012. The OPs delivered the possession in 2014. The complainant No.1 also paid the following charges for following facilities:-

I) For Park facing 3% extra of the basic price i.e. Rs.93,840/-.

ii) For Car Parking Rs.25,000/-.

Iii) For Club membership Rs.35,000/-.

iv) For Power back up Rs.20,000/-.

Thus the complainant paid Rs.1,73,840/- for the extra getting the extra benefits, and

v) IFMC Rs.19,550/-

Thus the total Price including cost of flat was about Rs.33 lacs.

3. That the OPs agreed that if they fail to give the possession after six months from the date of its allotment, then the OPs shall pay 10% per annum from the period beyond six months on the amount paid by the complainant or on advance payment including interest. The complainant No.1 intended to transfer the flat to some other person and the OPs also charged Rs.1,00,000/- for the same. On 13.08.2014, vide agreement dated 13.08.2014, the said property was sold to the complainant No.2 by the complainant No.1. The OPs also took Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant No.2 for the purpose of transfer of the said flat. The complainant No.1, who is NRI came to know that no such facilities have been given to him as stated above. Though the promise was made by the OPs to give the same through written agreement and the amount was also paid by the complainant in advance. Due to the said act and deficiency in service of the OPs, the complainant had suffered a great loss as complainant No.1 had to visit India for many times and even borne many unnecessary expenditure. Hence, the complaint is filed.

4. After the formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs, but despite service all the OPs failed to appear and ultimately, all the OPs were proceeded against exparte.

5. In order to prove their exparte claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainants Ex.CA along with some documents Mark C-1 to Mark C-23 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. Precisely, the case set up by the complainants is that the OPs offered to sell the flat through publication/advertisement in the area known as Shourya Greens, Surya Enclave, Amritsar Bye-Pass, Near Trinity College, Jalandhar. The OPs promised to give the luxury apartments and offered to provide full facilities to their customers. The complainant along with his co-applicant Jagdish Singh booked a flat for Rs.33,00,000/-. The payment was made through receipt Mark C-4 and to Mark C-7. The complainant No.1 was allotted a flat No.B-3/604 under the scheme of Shourya Green, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar and was issued the allotment letter on 26.04.2007, which is Mark C-2. The possession of the said flat was delivered in the year 2014. Further, OPs agreed that if the OPs failed to give the possession after six months from the date of allotment, then they will be liable to pay 10% per annum from the period beyond six months on the amount paid by the complainant on an advance payment including interest.

8. Further, the complainant No.1 intended to transfer the said flat to complainant No.2 and OPs charged Rs.1,00,000/- for the same on 13.08.2014, the said property was sold to complainant No.2 through an agreement dated 13.08.2014. The OPs again took Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant No.2 in the said complaint. The complainant contended that no facilities were ever given to them, though the OPs have promised the same.

9. We have sympathetically taken into consideration the above story narrated by the complainant and we find that there are two main issues for consideration, first issue is whether the OPs failed to give the possession after six months from the date of allotment and second issue is whether the OPs have failed to give all facilities to the complainant, which are mentioned in the complaint itself.

10. Regarding the first issue, we find that under the scheme of Shourya Greens, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, the allotment letter was issued on 26.04.2007, but the possession of the said flat was delivered in the year 2014, this means that the OPs failed to give the possession after six months from the date of allotment, hence, regarding the first issue, we find there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

11. Now, for the second issue i.e. regarding the facilities to be given by the OPs for which the complainant had paid the charges, we find that the OPs have failed to come forward and gave its submission and the evidence led by the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged. So, we find no ground to discard the exparte evidence of the complainants and so this issue is also decided in favour of the complainants and against the OPs.

12. So, under these circumstances, we find force in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the complainants and there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint of the complainants is partly accepted in favour of the complainant No.2 as the complainant No.1 has sold the said property to the complainant No.2, vide agreement dated 13.08.2014, which is Ex.C-14, so, complainant No.1 has no right whatsoever on the said property. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant No.2 for making deficiency in service and causing mental pain and harassment. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay 12% interest on the amount from the date of filing complaint, till realizaton. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

12.06.2018 Member President