Parveen Kumari filed a consumer case on 24 Apr 2019 against Parveen Kumari in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/114 and the judgment uploaded on 27 May 2019.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 114 of 26.11.2018
Date of decision : 24.04.2019
Parveen Kumari, aged about 36 years, wife of Raj Kumar, resident of House No.1860, Sector 7C, (wrongly mentioned as Sector 18C in agreement ) Chandigarh (UT)
......Complainant
Versus
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Amandeep Saini, Adv. counsel for complainant
O.Ps. exparte
ORDER
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest @ 13% per annum; to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges along with the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement till its realization in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the O.Ps. are running the business of Real Estate, constructing flats, developing colonies and selling the plots etc. on profit basis. In addition to that they are also running the deposit business like banks, financial institutions. The OP No.1 is the Chief Managing Director, O.P. No.2 is the Director and the OP No.3 is the Branch Manager of the M/s Nature Heights Infra Limited having its office at Nuhon Colony, VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. The O.P. attracted the general public at large by giving advertisement on the cable network and News papers etc. that they were going to present Nature Greens as Premium Residential Township in the form of a colony in Village Badingali, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur in which they would provide internal sewerage, water supply, drainage, parks, club etc. It is further stated that O.Ps. induced the general public to book the plots with them in the said colony. On the allurement of O.Ps, the complainant also booked one plot of 1000 Sq. Feet for a total consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- in the Ropar Branch. It was agreed between both the parties that the complainant/purchaser would be at liberty to pay sum in the installment of Rs.31250/- payable on or before yearly during four years. Complainant paid the first installment in Ropar Branch with the O.P. No.3 on 12.10.2011. The agreement for sale was also executed between the complainant and OPs on 18.10.2011. As per the terms and conditions of that agreement, the total period of payment was of four years. It was also agreed that the vendor/Ops would obtain all kinds of NOC, permissions and Income tax clearance by the time from appropriate authorities of Govt. As per the agreement after the expiry of stipulated period the complainant asked for the physical possession of the property. Thereafter complainant visited the proposed site and was shocked to know that there is no construction/demarcation of the plots in the said land. Even there was no boundary wall of the said land and the land was empty and complainant approached to the O.Ps and request for refund the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest as per agreement but the O.Ps. did not refund the amount. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 to 3, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2019.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. Complainant counsel Sh. Amandeep Saini, argued that complainant is the consumer, sufficient evidence is on the file regarding deposit and O.Ps. were proceeded against ex-parte. The complaint deserves to be allowed with costs.
7. Complainant counsel referred the pleadings, receipt Ex.C2, vide which complainant deposited Rs.1,25,000/- on different dates. Then there is one agreement dated 18.10.2011, which is between the parties regarding confinement of yearly deposit and final payment was to be made within four years and the said years comes to an end October 2015. The Further agreement pass to late the following observations:-
"That if a good and marketable title is not made out due to any reason then the purchaser would be at liberty to rescind, the agreement and vendor would be bound to pay 13% per annum compounded growth to his sums already paid within three months of the rescinding and demands. That if the purchaser himself/herself/itself does not want to get the Sale Deed Regd. willingly even in that condition refund of amounts along with 16% per annum growth will be payable to him/her etc."
Another settlement between the parties is as under:-
"That the vendor would obtain all kinds of NOC, permissions and income tax clearance by the time."
8. After referring the above said part of agreement, complainant counsel made prayer that the O.Ps. neither cleared the title nor obtained NOC even not made income tax clearance. When situation is such then complainant stopped further deposit of yearly installment and prayed deficiency is made out and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
9. After appreciating the totality of the document and appreciating the arguments, complainant deposited Rs.1,25,000/ which was to continue till October 2015. In this way, the complainant is the consumer O.Ps did not make any improvement as per the agreement then complainant filed the complaint in the month of November 2018. O.Ps. did not appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte. Qua the fraud committed some consumers got registered FIR No.59 dated 3.6.2016 against the O.Ps and its copy is Ex.C3. So complainant is able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. regarding the payment of Rs.1,25,000/-. So, the complainant is held entitled to Rs.1,25,000/-. The responsibilities of the O.Ps. is joint because OP No.3 acted though in the capacity of Manager on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2. They are liable to pay jointly and severally.
10. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed ex-parte with the directions to the O.Ps. to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. Rs.31,250/- on 12.10.2011, Rs.31,250/- on 04.12.2012, Rs.31,250/- on 10.12.2013, Rs.31,250/- on 16.11.2014 with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
11. The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within the period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)
Dated.24.04.2019 PRESIDENT
(CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.