Haryana

StateCommission

A/939/2015

KAPIL PROPERTIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

DIWAN SHARMA

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      939 of 2015

Date of Institution:      26.10.2015

Date of Decision :       01.06.2016

 

1.     M/s Kapil Properties, Village Atmadpur, Faridabad through its proprietor Shri Subhash.

2.     Mr. Subhash s/o Sh. Jagmal, Resident of House No.660, Tugalkabad, New Delhi.

3.     Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Resident of House No.663, Tuglkabad, New Delhi.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Om Parkash s/o Sh. Rameshwari Dayal, Resident of House No.200, Savitri Nagar, Near Malvia Nagar, New Delhi-17.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

2.      Pawan s/o Sh. Mahavir Singh, Resident of B-131, East of Kailash, New Delhi.

Proforma Respondent

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Appellants Subhash and Surender Kumar, with Shri Diwan Sharma, Advocate.

Respondent No.1-Om Parkash, with Shri Vikas Kumar, Advocate.

Respondent No.2-proforma.

                              

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

M/s Kapil Properties through its Proprietor Subhash and others-Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘Coloniser and Developers’) are in appeal against the order dated January 19^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby it directed the opposite parties No.1 to 3/appellants to pay Rs.6,35,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.2200/- compensation and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses to Om Parkash-complainant/respondent No.1.

2.      Om Parkash-complainant/respondent No.1, booked a plot admeasuring 150 Square yards situated in Mauza Mavai, Faridabad. He paid Rs.7,25,000/- to the opposite parties. An agreement in this regard dated February 21^st, 2008 (Annexure C-1) was executed between the parties. However, the possession of the plot was not delivered because the opposite parties entered into the agreement (Annexure C-1) to sell the plot to the complainant without obtaining permission from the State Government of Haryana with respect to Change of Land Use (CLU).  So sale-deed could not be executed in favour of the complainant. The complainant sought refund of the amount paid by him to the Coloniser/Developers but they refused. Hence, complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties No.1 to 3/appellants did not appear despite service, hence were proceeded exparte. The opposite party No.4 – Pawan (respondent No.2 herein), was given up.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties No.1 to 3 as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.      Indisputably, the complainant had booked a plot with the opposite parties vide agreement (Annexure C-1).  He paid Rs.7,25,000/- to the opposite parties but on the date of agreement (Annexure C-1), that is, February 21^st, 2008 the opposite parties (Coloniser/Developers) had not obtained CLU from State Government of Haryana and for that reason sale-deed could not be executed in favour of the complainant. It is the opposite parties, who without obtaining necessary permission, which is mandatorily required under the rules to have obtained necessary permission before they execute agreement and thus the Coloniser/Developers were certainly deficient in service. In this view of the matter, the complainant was justified to seek refund of the amount paid by him and the Coloniser/Developers are liable to pay the amount.

6.      During the pendency of complaint, Pawan-Opposite Party No.4 paid the amount of Rs.90,000/-, that is, the amount qua his share to the complainant. So, as per the statement of complainant name of the opposite party No.4 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Thus, the opposite parties No.1 to 3/appellants are liable to pay the balance amount, that is, Rs.7,25,000–90,000=Rs.6,35,000/- to the complainant, which the District Forum has awarded. In view of this, no case for interference is made out.

7.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 01.06.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL