Haryana

StateCommission

CC/538/2017

ROSHNI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRABHU SHANTI REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHEENU SURA

10 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                                                                                Date of Institution:04.09.2017

                Date of final hearing:10.04.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement:10.04.2023

 

Consumer Complaint No.538 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Mr. Roshni Devi W/o Prof. (Dr.) Sukhvir Singh Rathi, Retd. R/o H.No.1446, Sector-3, Rohtak-124001.

                                                                                      .….Complainant

Through counsel Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate

Versus

 

Prabhu Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1214, Sector -6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar-124507.

….Opposite party

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

                   None for the opposite party (defence already struck off vide order dated 06.02.2019).

O R D E R

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for disposal of present complaint are that complainant booked a floor with OP by depositing Rs.4,00,000/- as advance registration amount along with application No.2147 for the purpose of allotment of 2BHK Flat in PDM Hi-Tech Homes, Sector-3A, Sarai Aurangabad, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar on 19.02.2013. After payment of earnest money, the complainant paid his first installment of Rs.4,00,000/- on 19.07.2013 as demanded by the OP. It is further submitted that the opposite party deliberately omitted the application No.2147 from the draw of lots of the flat held on 19.01.2014 by claiming that the complainant has not deposited the requisite amount as per the payment plan. Thereafter, the complainant tried to convince the officials of company that incorrect information regarding payment plan was given by the officials itself. It is submitted that after this great deficiency, the opposite party demanded second installment of Rs.4,00,000/- and complainant paid the same on 23.01.2014. In this way, the opposite party received 21.14% of the total sale consideration prior to allotment of the flat whereas as per the schedule plan only 10% was to be paid at the time of booking and rest 15% at the time of allotment in lieu of the allotted unit. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party a number of times to enquire about the new date of draw of lots, so that his application can be considered for further allotment. But the opposite party never responded to the complainant. After waiting patiently, the complainant wrote a letter dated 18.10.2014 to the opposite party raising objections regarding unfair and arbitrary trade practice as the opposite party has accumulative deposit of 31.71% instead of 25% as per the payment schedule. Later, the complainant was assured that the unit will be allotted in her name in second draw of lots but no such proceedings were carried out by the opposite party and the same is pending till date. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 22.12.2014 mentioning “No Action” on her objections in this regard but the opposite party kept silent about any action on the application of complainant. It is further submitted that complainant wrote a letter dated 28.05.2015 to the opposite party demanding refund of amount deposited with interest but all in vain. The complainant visited the office of opposite party many times to settle the matter but to no response. The complainant further submitted that due to wrong legal advice by the earlier counsel, she approached the Hon’ble National Commission by way of filing a complaint CC No.506/2017 and the same was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction with a liberty to file the complaint before the appropriate forum. It is further submitted that even after a lapse of the stipulated date of delivery (September 2015) of possession, the opposite party failed to complete the project. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @24% p.a. to be compounded quarterly; to pay Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay Rs.44,000/- for litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party appeared, but, did not file the written version despite availing four opportunities as well as cost of Rs.5,000/- also remained not paid. Hence, this Commission vide order dated 06.02.2019 struck off the defence of OP.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the complainant, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, vide which she has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.

4.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, learned counsel for the complainant. With his kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence has been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

5.                As per the basic averment taken in the complaint including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, the basic and foremost questions which requires adjudication by this Commission as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which she has already deposited alongwith the interest? 

6.                After careful perusal of the entire record, which is not rebutted, it stands proved that the complainant booked a flat with OP by paying Rs.4,00,000/- as booking amount. As per the complainant, despite payment of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3) to the opposite party, the construction was not completed by the opposite party. Complainant requested for settlement of issues and refund of deposited amount (letter Ex.C-9). Since the project is not completed and possession is delayed much beyond the stipulated time, this Commission is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus, the complainant is well within her legal rights to get the refund of balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve lakhs only) which she had already deposited with the OP. Even otherwise also, there is a strong element of the physical and mental agony caused to the complainant for investing a huge amount and still remained deprived of the possession of the apartment and under these constrained circumstances, she had to knock the door of this Commission even for seeking refund of the amount.

7.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint, OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve lakhs only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from  the date of respective deposits till its realization. In case, there is a breach or delay in making payment within the stipulated period of 45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 15% per annum, for the defaulting period. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  In addition, the complainant is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) as litigation expenses.  It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P. Act would also be attracted. 

8.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

9.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on:10^th April, 2023                                                                                                

 

 

 Manjula

(Member)     

 

M.S.