Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/426/2017

PRAN NATH TICKOO - Complainant(s)

Versus

RURAL HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY - Opp.Party(s)

SANJAY DHAR

05 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No               307/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution     27-10-2016

 Date of Decision          28-02-2018

 

Pran Nath Tickoo,

S/O Sh.Sham Lal Tikoo,

R/O  H.No.134 Sector-2,

Durga Nagar,P.O.Roop Nagar,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                          Complainant

            V/S

1.The Jammu Cooperative Rural House

 Building Society Ltd.33/CC Behind Govt.

Hospital Gandhi Nagar,Jammu through its

Managing Director Sh.Balkar Singh.

2.Sheetal Singh,S/O Sh.Balkar Singh,

 R/O Kotli Shah Dullah,R.S.Pura,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                          Opposite parties

CORAM

                 Khalil Choudhary   (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                      Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member                                         

        

In the matter of  Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Sanjay K.Dhar,Advocate for complainant, present.

Nemo for OPs.  

 

                                                            ORDER

                         Grievance of complainant in nut shell is that in the month of November,2010 he intended to purchase a piece of land for construction of residential house and in the mean time he came to know through OP2 about the House Building Society and after visiting its office at Gandhi Nagar,Jammu OP2 being son of Sh.Balkar Singh(M.D.) had a meeting with complainant in presence pf other office bearers and he explained about the procedure and process for allotment of plot and the price of plot measuring 10 marlas situated at Raipur Domana was fixed at Rs.3,30,000/-. The complainant accordingly deposited Rs.50,000/-in cash on,26-11-2010 and OP No.1 issued the receipt Annexure-A.Complaint further proceeds on the premise that he paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-by cash in the month of March,2011 to OP No.2 and it was made clear by the Ops that plot would be earmarked and allotted in favour of complainant in the month of June,2011 and the complainant had to deposit balance amount of Rs.1,30,000/-at the time of delivery of physical possession of plot measuring 10 marlas.Allegation of complainant is that he approached Ops with a request for allotment of plot in his favour and receipt of balance amount, but to the utter dismay of complainant no steps were taken for allotment of plot in his favour,rather Ops refused to allot any plot in favour of complainant. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached Ops to fulfill the obligation on their part and receive the balance amount,but ultimately in the month of September,2016,Ops flatly refused to allot any plot and even did not refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un fair  trade practice. Hence being aggrieved of the conduct of the OPs,the complainant has approached this Forum for redressal of grievance, by directing Ops to allot the  plot of land in Housing Colony Raipur Domana or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.from the date of deposit till final realization and in addition also prays for compensation to the  tune of Rs.1.30 lacs  under different heads.

                     Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due,however,,OPs did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version was closed vide order dated 31-10-2017 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit. The complainant has placed on record copy of receipt of Rs.50,000/-issued by The Jammu Cooperative Rural House Building Society Ltd.

               We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                        The point for consideration is that as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not allotting the plot of land to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for allotment of plot of land at Raipur Domana,Jammu, but the allotment of plot of land  was not made to complainant despite repeated requests by the complainant with the OPs. The allegation of the complainant is that the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service in not allotting the plot of land to the complainant, which as per complainant had not been alloted to him due to negligence on the part of OPs and they are liable to pay compensation and litigation charges to the complainant. The complainant in order to prove his case has placed on record receipt in original issued by The Jammu Cooperative Rural House Building Society Ltd.showing that an amount of Rs.50,000/-has been deposited by the complainant in cash on,26-11-2010  for allotment of plot measuring 10 marlas. The complainant in his own duly sworn evidence affidavit has supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant.

                      So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own duly sworn affidavit so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complaint.

                      This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite of service of notice sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                 After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and Ops are the service providers having failed in their statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

             Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and Ops are directed either to allot the plot of land in Housing Colony Raipur Domana or  refund Rs.50,000/-alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f.26-11-2010(I.e.date of deposit of amount)till its realisation. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.The OPs shall comply the order within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                   Khalil Choudhary

                                                                (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                     President

Announced                                            District Consumer Forum

28 -02-2018                                                        Jammu.

Agreed by                                                               

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                               

      

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member