Haryana

StateCommission

A/280/2015

ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUSHPA YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

PARDEEP SOLATH

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      280 of 2015

Date of Institution:      24.03.2015

Date of Decision :      12.05.2016

 

Ansal Housing & Construction Limited, 15 UGF, 21 Bara Khamba Road, Indraprakash, New Delhi-110001 through its authorised representative.

                                      Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

 

Pushpa Yadav, Resident of House No.1062, Sector-3 (II), Rewari-123404, Haryana.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Pardeep Solath, Advocate for appellant.

                             Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Ansal Housing & Construction Limited-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated January 22^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’), vide which Consumer Complaint No.357 of 2011 filed by Pushpa Yadav-complainant/respondent, was allowed. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“……..the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay interest @ 9% p.a. over the refunded amount of Rs.5,20,000/- from the date of deposits till the date of refund i.e. 13.5.2011. The complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- against the opposite parties. The compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which entire amounts shall fetch penal interest @ 12% p.a.”

2.                The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that she applied for allotment of a residential plot admeasuring 320 square yards at Ansal Township, Rewari, on October 15^th, 2005, vide application Annexure A-2. She made initial deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- through account payee cheque No.134593 in favour of the appellant/opposite party and thereafter she paid Rs.2,00,000/-. In all she paid Rs.5,20,000/-. It is submitted that the appellant arbitrarily increased the size of the plot and consequently the price also; besides the appellant did not develop the area. Hence complaint was filed before the District Forum.

3.                The opposite party/appellant contested complaint by filing reply. It was pleaded that at the time of booking the size and price of the plot were tentative. The respondent was offered plot vide letter dated 09.08.2005 (Annexure A/5) with a request to make further payment. The respondent neither paid the amount nor came forward to take the plot. Reminders dated 22.09.2008, 08.01.2009, 20.05.2009 Annexure A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively, were issued. However, the respondent did not deposit the amount demanded from her.  Consequently, the appellant cancelled the allotment of the plot and sent a cheque No.821262 dated 10.05.2011 of Rs.5,20,000/- to the respondent vide letter dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure A-28) towards full and final repayment. The respondent accepted the above said cheque and thereafter filed the instant complaint.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the appellant as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that after receiving the refund of the deposited amount, the respondent ceases to be a consumer and thus the complaint was not maintainable. Secondly, that the appellant wrote various letters/reminders, referred to above, requesting the respondent to pay the balance amount and take possession of the plot. However, the respondent did not respond. Therefore, no deficiency could be alleged or attributed to the appellant.

6.                We are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant sent cheque No.821262 dated 10.05.2011 for Rs.5,20,000/- to the respondent vide letter dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure A-28) and the same was accepted by the respondent. So, the respondent ceased to be consumer, thereafter. Support to this view can be had from the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Indu Bala Satija versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2013) CPJ 475 (NC).

7.                Besides that after the appellant allotting plot and offering possession subject to the payment of balance amount, the respondent cannot allege any deficiency in service against the appellant.  The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

8.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 12.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL