BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.565 of 2014
Date of institution: 10.09.2014
Date of Decision: 10.04.2015
Gurnam Singh Bajwa, resident of House No.1361/3, Phase-XI, Mohali, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Pratham Group, SCO No.547, 1st Floor, Sector 70, Mohali through its Director.
2. TDI Limited, Mohali, Sector 117, Mohali (Kharar Highway) through its Director.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Shri Dalip Kataria, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Nitin Arora, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri Manoj Vashishtha, counsel for OP No.2.
(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER
The case of the complainants is that with an intention to settle at Mohali he invested a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) in 2012. The amount of Rs.12.00 lacs was received by Jatinder Singh, Jarnail Singh and Sandesh Thakur on behalf of OP No.1 and receipt dated 10.11.2012 Ex.C-1 was issued by OP No.1 in this regard. The OPs had promised to allot him the flat at the second floor with the rights of use of terrace. But in the agreement there was no such clause of use of terrace. Thus the complainant refused to sign the agreement and sought refund of the amount. The allotment of the unit was cancelled by the OPs and an amount of Rs.10,25,000/- was refunded to him. Till date the OPs have not refunded him the balance amount of Rs.1,75,000/- even inspite of legal notice dated 07.03.2014 Ex.C-2. OP No.1 had also requested OP No.2 vide its letter dated 19.07.2013 Ex.C-4 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- which till date has not been refunded.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.1,75,000/- and to pay him compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith costs of litigation.
2. OP No.1 has pleaded in the preliminary objections of the written statement the complainant was known to one Sandesh Thakur who was 20% share holder of Pratham Buildcall one of the company of Pratham Group. Later on the complainant booked a flat with OP No.2 through Pratham Build Call and an amount of Rs.1,02,500/- was paid to OP No.2 through OP No.1. The complainant requested the OP No.1 in the year 2014 to cancel the allotment of the flat and return his amount. OP No.1 requested OP No.2 to cancel the allotment and return the amount. Sandesh Thakur is no more share holder of the OP No.1. OP No.2 without any deduction refunded the amount of Rs.1,02,500/- to the complainant. The complainant again visited OP No.1 and showed receipt Ex.C-1 by saying that he had paid Rs.12,00,000/- for booking of flat whereas this amount was never paid to OP No.1. On merits, the averments made in the complaint have been denied. Thus, denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.2 in the written statement has pleaded that the complainant got registered for provisional allotment of residential floor No.785 SF measuring 1325 sq. ft. in Sector 117-118, Mohali by submitting application. Alongwith application form he deposited Rs.3,00,000/- through 3 account payee cheques dated 31.08.2012. He was made to understand that timely payment was an essence of the allotment and it was precondition of allotment. In case of delay in payment, the allotment would be cancelled. The complainant was not having sufficient funds with him and he could not make the payment of the installments. The complainant was time and again requested to clear the dues but he did not come. The complainant showed his inability to make the payment and requested the OP No.2 to cancel the registration and refund the deposited amount. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was accordingly refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 05.10.2013. The complainant issued a discharge Ex.OP-2/3 with regard to receipt of the amount in full and final settlement of all his claims. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, the OP No.2 has taken the same stand as has been taken in the preliminary objections and thus sought the dismissal of the complaint against it.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-4.
5. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Gursharan Singh its Director Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.
6. Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Rohit Gogia, its authorized signatory Ex.OP-2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/3.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and OP No.1.
8. The grievance of the complainant is that he has deposited Rs.12.00 lacs with the OPs as part sale consideration for provisional allotment of residential floor No.785 measuring 325 sq. ft. in Sector 117-118, Mohali. Since the OPs have not given him the flat, so he has made a request for cancellation and refund of the deposited amount. Against the deposited amount of Rs.12.00 lacs he has been refunded Rs.3.00 lacs by OP No.2 on 05.10.2013 and, therefore, non refund of the remaining amount is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9. We have perused the record and found that the complainant has not produced any receipts of deposit of Rs.12.00 lacs. Only three receipts alongwith Ex.OP-2/2 issued by OP No.2 in lieu of payment of Rs.3.00 lacs has been attached by the OP No.2 and the said receipts are not disputed by the complainant. Further OP No.2 vide Ex.OP-2/3 has produced the discharge slip duly signed and executed by the complainant showing the receipt of Rs.3.00 lacs by the complainant from OP No.2 vide account payee cheque dated 15.10.2013.
10. Once the complainant himself has received the payment of Rs.3.00 lacs against the receipts Ex.OP-2/2 and given a no claim certificate against OP No.2, nothing survives against OP No.2.Thus, at this stage the complainant cannot take a ‘u’ of his own undertaking and duly executed discharge receipt Ex.OP-2/3. So far OP No.1 is concerned; nothing has been shown on record to show that any payment is made to OP No.1 or that any payment is due from OP No.1. Thus, in the absence of any evidence against OP No.1, the assertions made in the complaint do not survive. We do not find anything amiss on the part of the OPs. Rather for the reasons recorded above, it is a frivolous and vexatious complaint for which the complainant deserves to be penalized with cost of deposit of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum.
11. Thus the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with the following direction to the complainant:
(a) To deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) in the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 10, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
