Haryana

Sonipat

CC/136/2016

Smt. Sukirti Devi W/o Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parasvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

B.B. Sharma

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

                             Complaint No.136 of 2016

                             Instituted on:05.05.2016                                           Date of order:29.07.2016

 

 

Sukirti Devi wife of Ishwar Singh, resident of H.No.344/11m, Gali no.1, Kadyan Villa, Dayanand Nagar, Bahadurgarh.

                                                ……Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

Parsvnath  Developers Ltd, Corporate and registered office 6^th Floor, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba road, New Delhi-01 through its Managing  Director.

     ……Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JB Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Pankaj Rohila, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          J.L. Gupta, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that she has booked a plot measuring 400 sq. yards with the respondent at the rate of Rs.5500/- per sq. yards and deposited Rs.5,50,000/- vide cheque no.537061 dated 15.2.2005.  The respondent after a lapse of one year, asked the complainant to deposit 2^nd installment of Rs.5,50,000/-, which she deposited vide cheque no.537063 dated 19.1.2006.  But till date, the respondent failed to allot the plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and this act & conduct of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant has applied for advance registration in the upcoming project of the respondent and not in any particular project which already exist.  No assurance of any kind was ever given by the respondent to the complainant.  As per terms of the advance registration form, in case of non allotment of plot within a period of one year from the date of advance registration, the complainant has the option to withdraw the advance paid by giving one month’s advance notice, but the respondent has not received any notice from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that huge amount of Rs.11,00,000/- the complainant is lying deposited with the respondents, but despite this, the respondents have failed to allot the plot to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. 

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent  has submitted that the complainant has applied for advance registration in the upcoming project of the respondent and not in any particular project which already exist.  No assurance of any kind was ever given by the respondent to the complainant.  As per terms of the advance registration form, in case of non allotment of plot within a period of one year from the date of advance registration, the complainant has the option to withdraw the advance paid by giving one month’s advance notice, but the respondent has not received any notice from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

          We have gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully and it appears that the respondent has failed to  allot any plot to the complainant despite the fact that they have received the huge amount of Rs.11 lacs from the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents as they are utilizing the huge amount of the complainant for their personal gain and without providing any services to the complainant.

          The respondents have also placed on record Annexure OP2 i.e. case law titled as Ganesh Lal Vs.Shyam. 

          But the perusal of the contents of this case law reveals that the facts of the present case and the cited law are totally different.  In the present case, there is a dispute regarding the deficiency in service in between the complainant and the builders and no issue regarding demarcation, ownership and possession is involved in the case in hand.  Whereas in the cited case, there is a dispute between two private parties and not between any individual and builders.  So, the respondents cannot take the benefit of the cited law.

          In the present case, the complainant has booked the plot with the respondent in the way back year 2005 and from time to time, has deposited Rs.11 Lacs with the respondent.  But till date, the respondent has not provided any plot to the complainant whereas the complainant has written a letter on dated 23.9.2011 to the respondent with the request to allot the plot in block A of their project. When in response to letter dated 23.9.2011, nothing was heard by the complainant, the complainant served the respondent with legal notice dated 16.3.2016 through her counsel and through this legal notice also, the complainant has requested the respondent to hand over actual physical possession of the plot.  But this legal notice has also not brought any fruitful result, whereas the respondent kept on utilizing the huge amount of Rs.11 Lacs of the complainant without providing any services to the complainant.

          Thus, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and they are liable to refund the amount to the complainant alongwith interest.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to refund the entire deposited amount of Rs.11 Lacs (Rs. eleven lacs) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum (fifteen percent) from the date of its deposit till its realization.  The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand)for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)      (JL Gupta)    (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF      Member DCDRF           DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:29.07.2016