BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 09 of 2022                                                         

                                                Date of Institution:          03.01.2022

                                                Date of Decision   :     08.05.2023

1. Mrs. Sheel Kaushik wife of Shakti Raj Kaushik,

2. Shakti Raj Kaushik son of Baldev Kaushik, both residents of H. No. 17, Sector-20, HUDA Sirsa.

                     ……Complainants.

                                      Versus

1. Royal Empire, Peer Muchhala Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali (Punjab) through its Prop/ Partner/ Auth. Person.

2. Sh. Prince Garg son of Jiwan Kumar, Royal Empire, H.No. 909, Sector-9, Panchkula, Director/ Partner/ Prop.

                                                                                  ...…Opposite party.

  Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,  2019.

BEFORE:  SH.PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT

MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER      

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite parties already exparte.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present joint complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ops).

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 12.09.2011 complainants had entered into agreement for purchase of Flat No. 503, Block-C with a covered area of 1490 Sq. feet at Peer Muchhalla Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab) for the total consideration of Rs.40 lacs which was to be paid in installments. That thereafter complainants have paid Rs. thirty eight lacs to the ops, out of which an amount of Rs. twenty five lacs was taken as loan by complainants from HDFC Bank. It is further averred that after expiry of prescribed period, the ops have not delivered the possession of the above said flat to the complainants. The complainants approached and requested the ops several times but ops always put off the matter with one pretext or the other and till today they have not delivered the possession of the above said flat to the complainants and have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. As such complainants are entitled to recover the above said deposited amount of Rs. thirty eight lacs alongwith interest from the ops from the date of agreement. It is further averred that complainants also got served a legal notice to the ops on 15.09.2021 but to no effect. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainants have suffered great financial loss, harassment, mental tension and agony. Hence, this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs. Thirty eight lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum till the realization of the amount besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Notice issued to op no.1 received back unserved with the report that op no.1 has left whereas notice issued to op no.2 received back with the report that no such person for receiving and as such notices issued to both the ops received back unserved. Thereafter, publication was got effected against the ops in News Paper Dainik Bhaskar on the application of complainants but despite that none appeared on behalf of ops and as such ops were proceeded against exparte.

4.       The complainants in evidence have tendered their affidavits Ex. CW1/A, Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents Ex. CW1/B to Ex. CW1/L.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the complainants and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.       The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished their affidavits Ex. CW1/A and Ex. CW2/A in which they have reiterated the contents of their complaint. The complainants have also placed on file copy of agreement to sell Ex.CW1/C executed between opposite parties and complainants on 12.9.2011 in respect of the plot in question whereby the ops undertaken that the flat shall be handed over to the second party i.e. complainants within 18-21 months from the date of agreement. However, in the event of delay in handing over of the flat under justifiable reasons, to the second party, the first party shall be liable to pay Rs.3.50 per Sq.Ft. X 1800 Sq.Ft =6300 per month as compensation for the delay to the second party. From the receipts Ex.CW1/J, Ex. CW1/K and Ex. CW1/L placed on file by complainants, it is evident that complainants deposited amounts of Rs.23,00,000/-, Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively with the ops on 13.09.2011 and on 24.09.2011. So, it is proved on record that complainants deposited total amounts of Rs.38,00,000/- with the ops after availing loan facility of Rs.25,00,000/- from the HDFC Bank. The complainants in order to prove that they have availed loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from HDFC Bank for purchasing flat in question of ops have also placed on file Home Loan Agreement Ex. CW1/H and loan schedule Ex. CW1/I according to which said loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was to be repaid to the bank by the complainants in 84 months in installments of Rs.42,479/- per month. It is also proved on record that as per agreement to sell Ex. CW1/C, the flat in question was to be handed over to the complainants by the ops within 18-21 months from 12.09.2011 but according to the complainants till today the ops have not delivered the possession of the above said flat to the complainants and accordingly complainants have sought refund of the amount of Rs.38,00,000/- deposited by them with the ops alongwith interest. The ops have failed to appear before this Commission despite notices and publication and opted to be proceeded against exparte and therefore, the pleadings as well as evidence of complainants remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Non delivery of the possession of the flat despite charging such a huge amount of Rs.38,00,000/- from complainants by the ops and non refund of the said amount in time to the complainants is certainly deficiency in service on the part of ops and same is also clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of ops due to which complainants have suffered great financial loss and mental harassment. So, the complainants are entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.38,00,000/- alongwith interest from the ops.

7.       In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Eight Lacs) to the complainants alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deposits i.e. 13.09.2011/24.09.2011 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the opposite parties to further pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainants and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. In case of default by the ops to pay the above said amounts within above said stipulated period, the complainants will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced:                                       Member                President

Dt. 08.05.2023.                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK