Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 403
Instituted on : 20.08.2019.
Decided on : 21.04.2022.
Ram Mehar Singh Malik son of Raghbir Singh(since deceased) through his LRs.
- Smt. Kokila Malik wife of Late Ram Mehar Singh Malik.
- Vivek Malik son of Late Ram Mehar Singh Malik
- Ankur wife of Raghbir Singh Malik,
Residents of House no.802 ward no.13, Chopra Colony, Gohana District Sonipat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Omax Ltd., Omax House 7 Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji New Delhi-110019, through its Managing Director.
- Omax City, Omax Houe no.461, G F Delhi Road, Rohak, through its Manager/Authorized person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Devender Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S.Malik, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked a floor in Happy Home II, Rohtak vide registration no.HHR/13. The total allotment price of said floor was Rs.400000/- and complainant paid the same to the respondents vide cheque/DD no.605786 of Oriental Bank of Commerce and receipt dated 22.11.2013 has been issued by the respondents in favour of the complainant. But till date i.e. after passing of more than 5 years, neither there is development regarding construction of floors in the said area by the respondents nor the possession of floor has yet been delivered to the complainant. Respondents in an illegal and arbitrary manner utilized the amount paid by the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.400000/- and also served a legal notice dated 13.12.2018 to the respondent no.1 which was replied by the opposite party No.1 to the effect that the said project has been cancelled and required original documents/receipts relating to registration and return of gold coin worth Rs.25000/- for refund of the deposited amount. Accordingly complainant deposited all the required documents and gold coin to Mr. Pardeep CRM on dated 23.05.2019 thorough authorized agent of Omaxe for refund of aforesaid amount but till date the respondents did not refund the said amount to the complainant. The act and conduct on the part of the respondents is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.. 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 @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization to the complainant and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.11000/- as 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 after going through the tentative plans and agreeing to the terms and conditions, the complainant through a property agent voluntarily out of his own free Will got himself registered with the respondent for booking of a residential unit in the upcoming project of the respondent vide registration form having tentative area admeasuring 1450 Sq. Ft. and deposited a sum of Rs.400000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.388010.48 paise was paid towards the booking amount and Rs.11989.52 paise was paid towards applicable service tax thereon which was deposited with the concerned Govt. department by the respondent. It is denied that the respondent illegally and arbitrarily did not return the amount to the complainant. The development was to be commenced after receipt of approval with respect to building plans from the concerned competent authority and the complainant was duly informed regarding the same. The plans and designs were tentative at the time of booking which later changed to plotted development instead of built up development and refund of deposited amount was to be made to the complainant after submission of all original documents including the receipt with regard to booking of a unit. It is denied that amount of complainant has been illegally withheld. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.02.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and the closed his evidence on dated 02.03.2022.
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 as per receipt Ex.C4, a cheque no.605786 dated 20.11.2013 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 not refunding the amount deposited by the complainant despite his repeated requests. As per the documents placed on record, it is observed that the payment was made by the complainant in the year 2013 and thereafter neither any construction of unit was started at the site not the booking 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.
6. It is also on record that the present complaint has been filed by Sh. Ram Mehar son of Sh. Raghbir Singh on dated 20.08.19. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant had died on 21.06.2021 and an application for impleading the L.Rs alongwith copy of affidavit and amended title is placed on record on dated 20.04.2022. As per application the following L.Rs have been impleaded as necessary party in the present complaint i.e. 1. Smt. Kokila Malik wife of Late Sh. Ram Mehar(wife), Vivek Malik son of Late Sh. Ram Mehar (son) and Ankur wife of Raghbir Singh Malik. Alongiwth these documents one affidavit has been placed on record by Smt. Ankur Devi w/o Sh. Raghbir singh. As per this affidavit, she has submitted that her son Ram Mehar had died on 21.06.2021 and she gives the rights of claim to her grandson.
7. In view of the above, we hereby allow the complaint and 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 L.Rs of complainant i.e. Kokila Malik wife of Late Sh. Ram Mehar Singh and Vivek Malik son of Late Sh.Ram Mehar Singh in equal share. Order shall be complied 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:
21.04.2022.
...............................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member
…………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
