Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/354

neetu kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phoenix Infra Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Kaushik Adv.

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.354 of  11.05.2016

Date of Decision          :   16.01.2017

 

Neetu Kaushal w/o Sh.Deepak Kaushal r/o House No.93, Tagore Park, Dr.Mukherjee Nagar, Model Town, North West, Delhi-110002.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.M/s. Phoenix Infra Private Limited(through its Directors)

2.Shiv Kumar Puri

3.Pranav Puri

  All having its registered office at Model Town Extension, SCO-3, 1^st Floor, Ludhiana-141002.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant           :         In person with Sh.J.K.Sharma, Advocate

For Ops                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the complainant is that she in the month of January 2014 got knowledge as if Ops floated a residential scheme in the market and they were planning to construct a true residential master piece in the form of Ultra-Modern Luxury Apartments at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. Confirmation of the same got from Ops through email. Relevant details for booking of the apartments were even collected. Complainant is residing at Delhi and she was interested in booking of the flat, due to which, she visited the office of Ops at Ludhiana. Complainant was taken on the site, where vacant land, on which, development was to be done was shown. OP2 and OP3 are the Directors of the OP1 company. Complainant party booked two flats i.e. one for self and other for her only son on the condition that flats would be allotted on the ground floor and adjacent to each other. Ops agreed for the same and thereafter, as per the terms and conditions, complainant submitted two cheques bearing No.365959 and 365960, each of date 24.3.2014 drawn at Canara Bank of amount of Rs.1,55,000/- each for the purpose of booking of the flats. Thereafter, the complainant again handed over cheque No.773903 dated 13.4.2014 drawn at Canara Bank and even cheque No.000054 dated 13.4.2014 drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank. Both these latter mentioned cheques were of amount of Rs.3,30,500/- each. Again complainant handed over two more cheques of amount of Rs.3,23,628/- each bearing Nos.365938 and 773904 of date 11.6.2014. All these cheques were encashed through receipts No.66, 67, 78, 79, 116 and 117 of dates 26.3.2014, 15.4.2014 and 11.6.2014. Two flats bearing No.PP/K/Ground/001 (3 BHK) and PP/K/Ground/002 (3 BHK) were allotted to the complainant and intimation with respect to the same given by Ops vide letter dated 26.3.2014. At the time of booking, Ops assured that construction work will start within 60 days positively and thereafter, flats will be completed upto December 2015. Complainant visited the office of Ops as well as site of the project many times, but she never found the construction work started on the site. When complaint lodged regarding non start of the project, then Ops assured every time the complainant qua the possession of the flats will be handed over to the her(complainant) within time i.e. upto December 2015. Lastly, the complainant visited the site on 20.12.2015 and found that no construction work has been started on the spot. Complainant came to know as if there was dispute of ownership of the project land at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. Despite payment of Rs.16,18,256/- by the complainant to Ops(as referred above), possession of the flats not handed over to the complainant, rather construction work has not been started. Even despite representation of 23.12.2015, deposited amount has not been returned and as such, after serving legal notice dated 15.1.2016 through counsel, this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service and for issuing directions to Ops to refund the paid amount of Rs.16,18,256/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2 lac along with litigation expenses also sought.

2.                OPs are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/1 along with documents Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/O, Ex.CW1/C1 and Ex.CW1/C2 and thereafter, counsel closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Thereafter, an amendment of the complaint was sought and request in that respect was allowed. Even after filing of the amended complaint, complainant suffered statement that already adduced evidence be read even after the amendment and she closed the ex-parte evidence.

5.                Arguments were then heard and record gone through minutely.

6.                Memorandum of Association like letter of OP1 concerned produced on record as Ex.CW1/A for proving that OP2 and OP3 are the Directors. Intimation Ex.CW1/B dated 19.1.2014 was conveyed through email to the complainant for disclosing that 3 BHK apartments along with store to be constructed in most advanced township known as Phoenix Paradise. Intimation of due installments Ex.CW1/C1 and Ex.CW1/C2 are produced on record to show that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was payable at the time of booking, but Rs.3,20,925/- payable after 30 days of booking, whereas amount of Rs.3,13,950/- payable after 60 days of booking of apartment. An amount of Rs.4,70,925/- payable on start of construction and as such assertions contained in affidavit Ex.CW1/1 of complainant are correct that she in response of this schedule of due installments, deposited the amounts through receipts Ex.CW1/E to Ex.CW1/G. Rs.1,55,000/- on 26.3.2014 was deposited through two receipts Ex.CW1/E bearing Nos.66 and 67. In this way, Rs.3,10,000/- were deposited by the complainant with Ops on 26.3.2014. Thereafter, vide receipts Nos.78 and 79 placed on record as Ex.CW1/F, two amounts of Rs.3,30,500/- each were deposited on 15.4.2014. Two more amounts of Rs.3,23,628/- each were deposited by the complainant with Ops through two receipts bearing No.116 and 117, copies of which produced on record as Ex.CW1/G. All these receipts bear the signatures of authorized signatory of Phoenix Infra Pvt. Ltd and as such, submissions advanced by complainant has force that an amount of Rs.16,18,256/- in all has been deposited by her             with Ops as per detail of installments schedule during period from             26.3.2014 to 11.6.2014. Balance amount not deposited because construction work was not started on the site by Ops is the version of the complainant suffered through her affidavit and that version of the complainant certainly is correct, being the version suffered on oath. Welcome letters Ex.CW1/H and Ex.CW1/I of date 26.3.2014 each are produced on record by the complainant to show that she booked the flats No.001 and 002 referred in the compliant. As per promise, possession of the flats were to be delivered by December 2015, but construction work of the flats have not been started till date and as such, certainly Ops committed an act of unfair trade practice of retaining the booking amount and other installments amount, but without keeping the promise of handing over the possession of the allotted flats within the stipulated time. Even despite service of legal notice Ex.CW1/J through postal receipts Ex.CW1/K, response not received from Ops and as such, inference of deficiency in service on the part of Ops certainly is draw-able. Copy of legal notice Ex.CW1/L along with postal receipts Ex.CW1/M, Ex.CW1/N and Ex.CW1/O are also produced on record, which proves that the grievance of the complainant remained un-redressed, despite issue of notices. No one can retain the deposited amount for long without fulfilling the promise of handing over the possession of the booked flats, but that is done by the Ops in this case and as such, complainant entitled to relief of refund of the deposited amount of Rs.16,18,256/-. Complainant by deposit of this amount lost interest on this amount for long period and even she suffered mental agony and suffering, due to non fulfillment of the promise by the Ops and as such, somewhat hefty amount of compensation for mental harassment required to be given to the complainant. Refund of deposited amount of Rs.16,18,256/- must also take place within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, Ops should be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from today onwards till payment. Complainant also entitled to litigation expenses because she had to visit from Delhi to Ludhiana for attending the proceedings of this complaint.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that Ops will refund Rs.16,18,256/- (Rupees Sixteen Lac Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @8% per annum from today onwards till payment. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

                Member                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.