Shaan Realtech Pvt. Ltd V/S Sunehra Singh Mehla S/o Indraj - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

277/2013

Sunehra Singh Mehla S/o Indraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shaan Realtech Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Abhishak Singh

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.277 of 2013

Date of instt.: 10.06.2013

Date of decision:14.03.2016

Sunehra Singh Mehla son ofSh.Indraj resident of house No.334, Sector 8 & 9, Part-II, Karnal..

. ……..Complainant.

Vs.

1.Shaan Realtech Pvt.Ltd. Colonizers & Developers A-5/11-P, Pischam Vihar, New Delhi 110063.

2.Atreja Properties Ltd.Subzi Mandi, Sandhu Market, near Mugal Canal, Karnal.

………… Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act.

Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:- Sh.Abhishek Singh Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Surender Gureja Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1.

OP No.2 ex parte.

ORDER:

The facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, are that the complainant booked one plot having an area of 151 sq. yards with Opposite Party no.1 vide application dated 11.11.2011, through Opposite party no.2 The Opposite party no.1 had allotted plot no.C-27 situated at “Shaan Heritage” at Rupgarh road, Jaipur. As per requirement of the Opposite party no.1, he deposited a sum o f Rs.16000/- vide cheque No.212144 dated 26.10.2011. After allotment of the plot, he contacted the Opposite parties and requested to show the site in question but the Opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests. Thereafter, he moved an application dated 26.5.2012 to Opposite party no.1 for the cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount of Rs.16000/-deposited by him. Initially, the Opposite party no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other, but later on flatly refused to refund the amount. Such act on the part of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in services, which caused him mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the present complaint and that the complaint has been filed with ulterior move to harass the Opposite party no.1.

On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant applied for allotment of corner plot of 151 sq.yds.in the project of the Opposite party no.1 named “Shaan Heritage” vide application dated 11.11.2011 and had agreed to pay prime location, charges @ 10% of the total cost of the plot. As per payment plan chosen, the total cost of the plot alongwith prime location charges was Rs.1,74,405/- .The complainant had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in the application form and payment plan “C” chosen by him. It has been admitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.16000/- vide cheque dated 26.11.2011. However, it has been denied that request was made by the complainant to show him the site. It has further been pleaded that Opposite Party was not under obligation to show the site to the complainant, because the complainant had booked the plot only after completely satisfying himself with regard to all the aspects including location, development and future prospectus of the project. Later on false ground was created by the complainant just to harass the Opposite Party and extort money from him. Moreover, the project site “Shaan Heritage” of Opposite Party no.1 was open to the public at large and any person could visit the project site during 9.00AM to 6.00ON onany working day. Therefore, the question of non compliance of the request of the complainant could not arise. It has further been averred that Opposite Party no.1 received application for refund and cancellation dated 26.5.2012. The complainant had not assigned any reason for seeking cancellation, which clearly established that the ground of showing site to him was an afterthought ground only after receiving legal advice in order to create false cause of action. Since the complainant had not fulfilled the terms of the settlement agreement and failed to make payment of the remaining amount, his application was rejected and booking amount deposited by him stood forfeited in terms of the settlement agreement and he was duly informed about the same. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

3. The Opposite Party no.2 also appeared in person on 10.10.2013, but none appeared on his behalf on 23.4.2014, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him.

4. In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

5. On the other hand, in evidence of the Opposite Party no.1 affidavit of Nisha Singh Ex.OP1/1 and documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 have been tendered.

6. We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant applied for a plot measuring 151 sq. yards in Shaan Heritage , a project of the Opposite Party no.1 vide application dated 11.11.2011 and had deposited an amount of Rs.16000/- vide cheque no.212144 dated 26.10.2011 The Opposite Party no.1 had allotted the plot No.C-27 to the complainant and later on provisional allotment letter dated 17.11.2011 Ex.C1 was issued in that regard. As per the case of the complainant he asked the Opposite Party no.1 to show him the site but they did not listen to his request, therefore, he sent application dated 26.5.2012 for cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount deposited by him. On the other hand, the Opposite Party no.1 has submitted that the complainant did not make payment of the installments as per payment plan and for that reason his allotment was cancelled and as per terms of the settlement agreement, the amount of Rs.16000/- deposited by him was forfeited. It has also been submitted that site was open for public during working hours of every working day and the complainant could visit the site, therefore, there could be no question of showing the site by Opposite Party no.1.

8. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.16000/- only vide cheque dated 26.10.2011 alongwith the application and thereafter did not make any payment, whereas he was to adhere to the payment plan attached with the allotment letter. He was required to pay 15% within 15 days i.e. Rs.27000/- upto 25.11.2011 and thereafter make payment of the installments as per plan. However, not even a single penny was paid by the complainant after the issuance of the allotment letter. If, the complainant had not seen the site at the time of making application for allotment, he could see the site after allotment of the plot to him because as per payment plan he was to deposit further installment of 15% within 15 days of the letter of allotment. However, neither he made payment of any installment as per payment plan, nor cancelled the allotment before the period of fifteen days when the next installment was to become due. He remained silent for a period of more than six months and then wrote letter for cancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount. It has not been alleged by the complainant that there was any violation of term or condition of settlement agreement by the Opposite Party no.1 and that gave him the cause for cancellation of the plot. The complainant could not show any term or condition according to which he could seek refund of the amount deposited by him after six months of the allotment. Under such circumstances, forfeiture of the amount by the Opposite Party no.1 on account of nonpayment of the installments as per the payment plan cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified in any manner.

9. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:14.03.2016

(K.C.Sharma)

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )

Member.