Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 214.
Instituted on : 02.07.2020.
Decided on : 11.08.2021.
Anita aged-40 years w/o Sh. Sukhchain, r/o village Kheri Sadh, Kheri Sadh 42, Distt. Rohtak(Haryana
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Omaxe Happy Home II Rohtak, Jhajjar-Rohtak Road, Rohtak
with corporate address:
- Corporate Office-7, Local Shopping Complex, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (India).
- Reg. Office: shop No.19B, First Floor, Omaxe Celebration Mall, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ajay Sheoran, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Mannu Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant agreed to purchase a floor unit measuring 1450 Sq. Ft. with total consideration of Rs.4000000/- with the opposite party and deposited the booking amount of Rs.400000/- through cheque. That at the time of booking, it was assured by the opposite parties that the construction would be finished within time being the time bound project. But the above said unit is still pending to be started and now the opposite parties are enforcing the complainant for purchasing another piece of land i.e. plot in lieu of floor and such terms are not part of the above mentioned agreement. Complainant requested the opposite parties for refund of money deposited by the complainant alongwith interest but till today the amount has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of transfer of amount with the respondent on dated 26.11.2013 till its realization to the complainant and also to pay Rs.30000/- on account litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that complainant is merely an investor who has invested in a real estate project in order to earn profit and now due to adverse market conditions filed the present complaint. That the Hon’ble Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the compensation claimed by the complainant is more than the pecuniary limits of this Hon’ble Forum. That the transaction took place between the parties at New Delhi. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant through a property agent voluntarily out of her own free will got herself registered with the OP for booking a residential unit in the upcoming project of the OPs vide a registration form having tentative area admeasuring 1450 sq. ft. and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.3,88,010.48/- paise was paid towards the booking amount and Rs.11,989.52/- paise was paid towards applicable service tax thereon which was deposited with the concerned government department by the OPs. It is further submitted that upon receipts of approval of the building plans from the concerned government 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 she would soon be intimated regarding the same. The respondent is having clear title of land and the process of registration was commenced only after receipt of necessary license, approvals, sanctions etc. from the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana Chandigarh and other concerned authorities. That the complainant was well aware of the fact that the development and construction of units in the project were purely tentative at the time of registration subject to approval of building and other plans by the concerned competent authority. It is denied that respondent is enforcing the complainant for purchasing another piece of land. No unit is being offered to the complainant at different location. The unit, if any offered to the complainant is situated to the same location where the complainant got herself registered for allotment of a unit. It is denied that complainant ever requested the respondent for refund of amount. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed against the opposite parties.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence on dated 11.01.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and the evidence of the opposite parties was closed by the order dated 09.08.2021 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the objection as to commercial purpose was taken by the OPs in their written statement but OPs failed to place any cogent evidence or material 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. Hence this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.
6. As per statement of account Ex.C1 as well as receipt Ex.R1, a cheque no.053256 dated 19.11.2013 amounting to Rs.400000/- has been deposited by the complainant towards registration amount of flat to the opposite party. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that opposite party company breached the terms of agreement and has not started the construction work at site and now the opposite parties are enforcing the complainant for purchasing another piece of land i.e. plot in lieu of floor against the terms and conditions of the agreement. The payment was made by the complainant in the year 2013 and thereafter neither any correspondence regarding the construction of unit or demand regarding remaining payment has been made by opposite parties nor the amount has been refunded to the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount alongwith interest and compensation to the complainant.
7. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.400000/-(Rupees four lacs only) alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25000/-(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.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.08.2021.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member
