Haryana

Panchkula

CC/160/2014

NISHA GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROYALE EMPIRE. - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN SOOD.

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	160 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2014
Date of Decision	:	24.04.2015

                                                                                          

1.       Nisha Gupta aged about 47 years, wife of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Gupta.

2.       Rajesh Kumar Gupta aged about 48 years, son of Sh.G.S.Gupta.

          Both R/o H.No.431, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainants

Versus

1.       Royale Empire (Royale Minaar), having its registered office at House No.909, Sector-9, Panchkula through its Director Sh.Jeewan Garg s/o Sh.Atma Ram Garg, R/o House No.909, Sector-9, Panchkula.

2.       Sh.Jeevan Garg s/o Sh.Atma Ram Garg, Director of Royal Empire (Royal Minaar), R/o House No.909, Sector-9, Panchkula.

3.       Sh.Prince Garg s/o Sh.Jeevan Garg, Director of Royal Empire (Royale Minaar), R/o House No.909, Sector-9, Panchkula.                                                                            

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr.Nitin Sood, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Ops already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainants with the averments that on the promises and assurance given by the Ops, they booked a residential flat No.404 in Block E with the covered area of 1495 sq. ft. and super area 1850 sq. ft. in project of Royale Empire at Peermuchhalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab vide an agreement to sell dated 08.05.2011 (Annexure C-1) for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- + Rs.2,08,000/- as one time charges on account of flat being park facing. In the agreement (Annexure C-1), it was mentioned that the flat was under construction and the same was free from all sorts of encumbrances i.e. sale, gift, mortgage, claims, charges and litigation etc. The Ops also told that their project/buildings were to be raised on an area of about 4 acres. Later on, the complainants came to know that the Ops were owner of approximately 1.5 acre only and the Block E was to be constructed on the land which was not in the ownership of the Ops at the time of agreement to sell. The complainant deposited Rs.7,00,000/- through cheque No.625582 (Annexure C-2) dated 08.05.2011 drawn on Canara Bank, Panchkula and Rs.1,60,000/- through cheque No.429937 (Annexure C-3) dated 08.05.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank, Sector-11, Panchkula as booking amount in favour of Royal Empire which was acknowledged by the Ops vide receipt No.42 (Annexure C-4) dated 08.05.2011. The Ops also took a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide cheque No.125384 dated 08.05.2011 and Rs.80,000/- vide cheque No.125385 dated 08.05.2011 in the name of Corporation Bank so the Ops received a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- from the complainants and the remaining amount was to be deposited as per construction plan. The complainants adopted the payment plan of Royal Empire as mentioned in Clause 3 of the agreement of sell dated 08.05.2011. As per the agreement to sell, the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainants within 21-24 months from the date of booking/agreement. Thereafter, the complainants visited the site in question but there was no construction at site i.e. in Block E. The complainants enquired the matter and came to know that the Ops were not the owners of the land/project. The Ops also assured the complainants that Royal Empire was approved by the PUDA under the licence No.CTP (SS)-11/498 dated 08.04.2011. Further the complainants came to know through advertisements published in newspapers that the Ops were fled away (Annexure C-6), several FIRs were registered against the Ops and they also were arrested (Annexure C-7). The complainants requested many times to Ops to complete the construction of the flat or to refund the amount paid by them but to no avail. This act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops through publication. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops. It is deemed to be served and the Ops were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.03.2015.
3. The counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-25 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is admitted that the complainant booked a residential flat No.404 in Block E with covered area of 1495 sq. ft. and super area 1850 sq. ft. in project of Royale Empire at Peermuchhalla, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab vide an agreement to sell dated 08.05.2011 (Annexure C-1) for a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- + Rs.2,08,000/- as one time charges on account of flat being park facing. The complainants deposited Rs.7,00,000/- through cheque No.625582 (Annexure C-2) dated 08.05.2011 drawn on Canara Bank, Panchkula and Rs.1,60,000/- through cheque No.429937 (Annexure C-3) dated 08.05.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank, Sector-11, Panchkula as booking amount in favour of Royal Empire which was accepted by the Ops vide receipt No.42 (Annexure C-4) dated 08.05.2011. On demand of Ops, the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide cheque No.125384 dated 08.05.2011 and Rs.80,000/- vide cheque No.125385 dated 08.05.2011 in the name of Corporation Bank, thus, the Ops received a sum of Rs.11,40,000/- from the complainants and the remaining amount was to be deposited as per construction plan. As per the agreement to sell, the possession of the flat was to be delivered to the complainants within 21-24 months from the date of booking/agreement. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainants visited the site in question but there was no construction at site i.e. in Block E. The Ops assured the complainants that their project/buildings were to be raised on an area of about 4 acres but later on, the complainants came to know that the Ops were owner of approximately 1.5 acre only.  The complainants enquired the matter and came to know that the Ops were not the owners of the land/project i.e. Block E. He further submitted that the Ops also assured the complainants that Royal Empire was approved by the PUDA under the licence No.CTP (SS)-11/498 dated 08.04.2011. Further the complainants came to know through advertisements published in newspapers that several FIRs were registered against the Ops and they also were arrested (Annexure C-7). The complainants requested many times to Ops to complete the construction of flat or to refund the amount paid by them but to no avail. The complainants have also filed joint duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. The justice delivery system postulates adjudication after the rival parties file their pleadings and make their presentation, thereby enabling the Judicial Forum to adjudicate. A party which does not file pleadings, disables effective adjudication. A party which does not controvert the case of the party opposite is deemed to concede it. In the case of a DCF, the evidence is adduced by the parties in the form of pleadings. If the Ops do not file pleadings and/or affidavit in support thereof, it can be legitimately inferred that they are not in a position to contest the claim of the complainant.
7. In view of the fact that the Ops neither responded to the legal notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise congnizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the Ops had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint has also the affidavit in support thereof.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the deposited amount of Rs.11,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

24.04.2015       ANIL SHARMA      ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT