Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 472.
Instituted on : 01.10.2018.
Decided on : 26.09.2019.
Parveen Kumar s/o Shri Sant Lal r/o 16/R, Model Town, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Omaxe Buildwell Limited, Omaxe City, Sector-28, Rohtak.
- Omaxe Buildwell Limited, 10 Local Shopping Complex, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a shop in Omaxe City under the project Happy Home Shops, Rohtak and had deposited a sum of Rs.144913/- dated 05.06.2015 as registration amount and Rs.155086.37 dt. 20.08.2015 as part payment for the above said commercial shop. That the client ID is HHSR/78/T1 and provisional allotment of unit no. is HHSR/P/358. That the above said project was closed in the year 2015 without any intimation to the complainant by Omaxe building well Ltd. and the possession of the above said shop was not given to the complainant at the time of registration of the above said commercial shop. That complainant deposited the original documents with the officials of the opposite party on 09.05.2018 and assured the complainant to receive the refund of amount within one month. That complainant visited the office of opposite party time and again to receive the refund of amount paid by the complainant but they refused to refund the same to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to compensate the complainant on account of costs, mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant is not a consumer as the flat was not required by the complainant for his personal use as the complainant is merely an investor who has invested in many properties of respondent in order to earn profit by selling it to market. That this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the total value of the flat in dispute is more than 20 lakhs i.e. value of the jurisdiction of this Court. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as all the transaction between the parties took place at New Delhi. On merits, it is submitted that one Mohit Dhall booked a commercial unit with the respondent and deposited a sum of Rs.151000/- towards the registration amount alongwith service tax. Thereafter, the complainant jointly with aforesaid Mr. Mohit Dhall applied for transfer of registration in favour of the complainant and upon their request, the registration was endorsed in favour of the complainant by the respondent. That on receipt of approval of the building plans from the concerned Govt. authorities, the development and construction of the project was to be commenced at site. The complainant was duly informed that the process of allotment was about to be commenced and he would soon be intimated regarding the same. That the possession of the commercial unit was to be handed over after receipt of entire cost and additional charges as per the agreed terms. The complainant himself is well aware that that commencement and completion of project was subject to requisite approvals and sanctions of building plans by the concerned competent authority. That no assurance was given to the complainant regarding the refund of deposited amount. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 17.05.2019. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 & 2 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed their evidence on 30.08.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
6. The objection as to commercial purpose was taken during the pendency of the complaint but OPs failed to place any cogent evidence which could prove that the flat was purchased for commercial purpose. Regarding the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction, the total relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs. So this objection is turned down. Regarding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the office of opposite parties is situated at Rohtak and the flat in dispute is also situated at Rohtak, so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the offer of the opposite parties complainant paid the payment of flat, which was accepted by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is a consumer.
7. After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, it is observed that opposite party has issued receipt no.1195890 dated 24.05.2015 Ex.C3 to one Mohit Dhall and after transfer of flat in the name of complainant an endorsement of the same was made to the complainant vide letter Ex.C1. Complainant also paid an amount of Rs.161600/- vide receipt no.C4 to the opposite party. In this way, the respondent has received an amount of Rs.312600/- from the complainant. However, as per letter Ex.C5, complainant has sought refund of amount of Rs.382000/- from the opposite parties, which is duly received and stamped by the opposite party. But till date no refund has been made by the opposite parties. As per the complaint, the above said project was closed in the year 2015 by the opposite parties without any intimation to the complainant by the opposite parties and no possession of the shop has been given to the complainant. But no specific reply to the same has been given by the opposite parties. Opposite parties have also not placed on record any document to prove that whether the project was in existence or not. Neither any demand letter nor any possession letter has been issued to the complainant. After receiving the part payment in the year 2015, no correspondence has been made by the opposite parties with the complainant regarding payment of remaining amount. Till date no amount has been refunded to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
8. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.312600/-(Rupees three lac twelve thousand six hundred only) which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective payments by the complainant to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.09.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
