DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1187 of 2018
Date of institution: 16.11.2018 Date of decision : 18.09.2020
Inderjit Singh son of Shri Ram Parkash Singh, aged about 58 years resident of H.N.579, Phase-X, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Mobile No.9814811579.
…….Complainant
Versus
RKM Housing Ltd. through its Managing Director Shri K.S. Walia, SCO No.1-2-3-4, Behind Chandigarh Engineering College, Sector 112, Landran, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Telephone 0160-5032222.
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short) on the ground that on 16.10.2010 a memorandum of understanding was prepared among the parties and the CC was to contribute funds for the purchase of plot in the land acquired by the OP in Sector 112, SAS Nagar. The right of the CC was reserved on a developed plot in the future project which was to be allotted on priority basis. Accordingly the OP certified on 05.01.2011 that the CC, who intends to purchase a plot of 200 sq. yards has contributed a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cheque dated 08.12.2010. Later on the OP again asked for further deposit of Rs.7,67,667/- within 7 days vide letter dated 06.05.2011. The CC objected to this letter since it was not in consonance with the memorandum of understanding. It is alleged that after obtaining advance from the GPF from the Govt., the CC paid another amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the OP on 04.07.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-6. The CC again paid another amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs to the OP on 25.08.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-7. It is alleged that the OP vide letter dated 24.09.2011 informed the CC that plot No.302 measuring 200 sq. yards in Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar has been allotted to the CC. The OP further disclosed that the total cost of the plot would be Rs.23,60,000/- against which the CC had paid only Rs.10,50,000/- and another demand of Rs.2.00 lakhs for development charges was raised by the OP. Then another letter dated 10.04.2012 was sent by the OP to the CC wherein it was written that an amount of Rs.10,12,000/- was outstanding against the CC and he has to pay the same before 20.04.2012. The CC opposed the contents of letter dated 10.04.2012 terming them as arbitrary but again paid Rs.1.00 lakh through cheque dated 17.05.2012 to the OP. Receipt of payment of Rs.1.00 lakh was acknowledged by the OP vide Ex.C-12. It is further alleged that the OP vide letter dated 18.08.2012 informed the CC that the total cost of the plot would be Rs.23,60,000/- and the CC has only paid Rs.11,50,000/- and asked the CC for deposit of Rs.6,20,000/- to complete 75% of the cost of land vide letter Ex.C-13. The OP further acknowledged receipt of another amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs on account of part payment of the land vide receipt dated 01.12.2012. It is alleged that the OP informed the CC vide its letter dated 12.04.2013 that now the CC will get the possession of 250 sq. yards plot shortly and again the OP raised demand of payment of Rs.27,11,600/- towards cost of the land and development charges etc. The OP vide letter Ex.C-16 informed the CC that it is about to handover possession of the plot and asked the CC to clear the payment and obtain no due certificate. The OP later on also acknowledged further payment of Rs.1.00 lakh by the CC vide receipt Ex.C-17. It is further averred that the OP vide letter dated 16.11.2013 informed the CC that the cost of plot measuring 250 sq. yards is Rs.29,50,000/- against which the CC had paid only Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.15.00 lakhs was outstanding against the CC which the CC should deposit at the earliest. The CC wrote letter dated 09.11.2013 to the OP reminding it the contents of MOU signed among the parties and requested the OP to amend the agreement for purchase of 250 sq. yards plot at the same rate. It is alleged that the OP by its letter dated 16.11.2013 of its own changed the category of plot from 200 sq. yards to 250 sq. yards and informed the CC that price of 250 sq. yards plot was Rs.34,50,000/- against which the CC had paid Rs.14,50,000/- and demanded balance payment of Rs.20,00,000/- from the CC with interest of Rs.6.00 lakhs totaling Rs.26.00 lakhs. Ultimately the CC vide letter dated 22.04.2016 informed the OP that MOU was signed on 16.12.2010 and till date no plot has been allotted to the OP by the CC as such he is compelled to seek refund of his entire amount. It is further averred that the CC in total has paid Rs.14,50,000/- and neither possession of the plot is given to the CC nor refund is made despite his requests. It is further averred that the OP gave refund of part payment of Rs.4.00 lakhs by RTGS in the account of the CC leaving balance of Rs.10,50,000/- to be refunded by the OP.
Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the CC has sought refund of Rs.10,50,000/- from the OP alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits of amount to the date of actual payment. The CC has also sought Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. The OP has chosen to remain ex-parte. It is important to mention here that the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.05.2019 of this Commission.
3. The CC in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and various documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 and thereafter closed his evidence and also further submitted one affidavit claiming only Rs.6,50,000/-.
4. Since the entire evidence of the CC is on the file and the OP is already ex-parte, we feel that no prejudice is going to be caused to any of the parties if the present complaint is decided on merits. Otherwise also the present Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act which is enacted to provide speedy justice to the parties.
5. Since the OP has chosen to remain ex-parte and has not come forward to contest the claim of the CC, we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint, affidavit and documents attached with the complaint. We feel that the evidence led by the CC is cogent, reliable and trust worthy. It is on the file that the CC has entered into an agreement with the OP on 16.10.2010 in order to buy a plot of 200 sq. yards in Sector 112, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The allotment was to be made to the CC on priority basis. Stamp duty for execution of MOU was also purchased on 13.12.2010. It is on the file that OP certified on 05.01.2011 that the CC intends to purchase a plot of 200 sq. yards for which he had contributed a sum of Rs.50,000/- by cheque. The OP demanded another amount of Rs.7,67,667/- from the CC vide letter Ex.C-3 and the CC deposited Rs.2.00 lakhs with the OP on 04.07.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-6. The CC again deposited Rs.8.00 lakhs on 25.08.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-7 which shows that plot No.238 was allotted to the CC. Later on the OP vide its letter dated 24.09.2011 Ex.C-8 informed that the plot No.302 measuring 200 sq. yards in Sector 111-112 has been allotted to the CC. It is also proved on file that initially the OP vide letter dated 17.11.2011 informed the CC that the total price of the plot would be Rs.23,60,000/- against which the CC has already paid Rs.10,50,000/- and demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs more from the CC latest by 25.11.2011 vide Ex.C-9. The OP informed the CC vide letter Ex.C-10 that the CC should pay Rs.10,12,000/- more before 20.04.2012. The CC protested this demand and wrote letter dated 17.05.2012 to the OP terming the demand of the OP as arbitrary and against the agreement. However, the CC further deposited Rs.1.00 lakh with the OP vide receipt Ex.C-11. Surprisingly the OP again on 18.08.2012 informed the complainant that the cost of the plot would be Rs.23,60,000/- and the CC has paid only Rs.11,50,000/- and asked the CC to pay Rs.6,20,000/- to complete 75% of the total consideration of the plot. The OP again informed the CC vide letter dated 12.04.2013 that instead of 200 sq. yards plot, the OP would hand over a plot of 250 sq. yards and further raised a demand of Rs.27,11,600/- towards cost of the land and development charges etc. Again vide letter dated 18.10.2013 Ex.C-16 the OP informed the CC to clear the payment and obtain no due certificate. The CC again deposited Rs.1.00 lakhs which was acknowledged by the OP vide receipt Ex.C-17. The OP vide letter dated 16.11.2013 informed the CC that the cost of plot No.9 measuring 250 sq. yards is Rs.29,50,000/- and the CC has paid Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.15.00 lakhs more to be paid by the CC to the OP. The CC requested the OP that as per MOU the OP should get cost of 250 sq. yards plot on the same rate on which 200 sq. yards plot was allotted to him. The OP vide letter dated 16.11.2013 changed the category of plot from 200 sq. yards to 250 sq. yards and the OP vide letter dated 29.05.2014 informed the complainant that the cost of the plot is Rs.34,50,000/- and further demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as balance amount with interest of Rs.6.00 lakhs, totaling Rs.26.00 lakhs and informed the CC that in case of non payment his pot will not be reserved.
6. In the present circumstances, as mentioned above, the CC had no option except to demand refund of his amount. The OP on demand of the CC has refunded Rs.4.00 lakhs but Rs.6,50,000/- were retained by the OP without any reason (since he has received the balance amount). The CC has termed the act and conduct of the OP as unfair trade practice from the very beginning. We have minutely perused the entire evidence and documents proved on file.
7. It is writ large that the OP being developer was not in a position to offer 250 sq. yards plot to the CC, as agreed upon among the parties, and later on was also not able to provide any alternative property to the status of the CC in the alleged complex or proposed to be developed, as such this act of the OP definitely makes the CC entitled for refund of the amount.
8. Since the pleadings made in the complaint are unrebutted by the OP and there is sufficient evidence on the file, we are of the considered view that despite making huge payment to the OP, no possession of plot was given to the CC as per the MOU/agreement which is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. Accordingly the present complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund to the CC the amount to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. The OP is further burdened to pay consolidated compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) for harassment as well as for litigation expenses. Free certified copies of the orders be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record in accordance with rules.
Announced
September 18, 2020
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
