DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.213 of 2016
Date of institution: 18.04.2016 Date of decision : 31.08.2017
Ajay Rana son of Sikander Singh, resident of Mohalla Narayan Nagar, Near Sukhi Choi, Sant Kutia, Bhadurpur, Hoshiarpur through his special power of attorney Sikander Singh son of Late Amar Singh, resident of Mohalla Narayan Nagar, Near Sukhi Choi, Sant Kutia, Bhadurpur, Hoshiarpur.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Sky Rock City Welfare Society through its President/Executive Member Navjeet Singh resident of House No.67, Sector 69, Mohali, Punjab.
2. Parminder Kaur wife of Navjeet Singh, General Secretary of the Sky Rock City Welfare Society, resident of House No.67, Sector 69, Mohali, Punjab and employee of Sky Rock City.
3. Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.) through its President/Executive Members, behind Chandigarh Engineering College, Landran Road, Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Naresh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
None for the Opposite Parties.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Ajay Rana has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act through his special attorney Sikander Singh. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant submitted an application to the OPs for becoming of the society for allotment of 100 sq. yard residential plot. The complainant was allotted membership/registration No.3364 for allotment of residential plot @ Rs.12,000/- per sq. yard. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as membership fee on 01.08.2011. On demand dated 05.01.2012 of the OPs, the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the OPs vide cheques dated 20.01.2012 and 28.01.2012 which were duly received by the OPs. The complainant further deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with the OPs vide cheques dated 28.05.2012 and 19.06.2012 against which receipt No.8088 was issued to the complainant. In total the complainant had paid Rs.6,10,000/- to the OPs. As per the terms and conditions the OPs were required to handover the physical possession of the plot to the complainant within 2 years from the date of registration/requisition. The complainant, in the meantime came to know that the OPs does not have the license to develop the project. The complainant then submitted an application dated 25.02.2013 to the OP for refund of the deposited amount. Thereafter the complainant visited the OPs many times but every time a lame excuse was given. The OPs does not have a valid license to develop the project but the OPs represented that they are fully eligible and possessing a valid license for the project.
Hence the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to refund him the deposited amount of Rs.6,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till realisation; to pay him Rs.4.00 lakhs as compensation for mental trauma and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Shri Ram Yash Verma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs on 03.08.2016 and filed power of attorney. Learned counsel for the OPs sought adjournment for filing reply. However, the reply was not filed by the OPs within the stipulated period and even after imposition of costs. Therefore, the right of the OPs to file written version was struck off vide order dated 24.11.2016.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the Sikander Singh, SPA of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/1; copies of Special Power of Attorney Ex.C-1; application form Ex.C-2; terms and conditions Ex.C-3; receipts Ex.C-4 to C-6; letter Ex.C-7 and order of this Forum Mark-A. The OPs also did not lead any evidence inspite of availing many opportunities. Hence, the evidence of the OPs was closed by order on 14.06.2017.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite making payment of Rs.6,10,000/- against the total sale consideration of the plot, the possession of the plot has not been handed over to the complainant within the assured period of two years from 01.08.2011. Learned counsel has argued that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice by receiving amounts without having any approvals from the competent authorities. Learned counsel has thus argued that the complainant may be got refunded of his deposited amount alongwith compensation for mental harassment and agony as well as costs of litigation.
6. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence, written arguments and heard the oral submissions addressed by the learned counsel for the complainant. Against the price of the plot, the complainant had deposited with the OPs an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- which is proved from the receipts Ex.C-4 to C-6. When the complainant learnt that the OP does not have the approvals/sanctions from the competent authorities for the project, he requested the OP for refund of the amount vide request dated 25.02.2013 Ex.C-7 which was duly received by the OPs as is evident from the stamp and signatures of the officials of the OPs on Ex.C-7. The complainant has stated in the complainant that the OPs have committed unfair trade practice by receiving the amount from him without having necessary approval/sanctions from the competent authorities for the project. The OPs neither filed reply to the complaint nor lead any evidence in support of their defence. The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted. It is well settled law as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., 2007 (2) CLT 440 that a builder/developer collecting money from the consumers without having proper and necessary sanctions in its favour from the competent authorities has indulged into unfair trade practice. The facts of the present complaint are squarely covered with the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a latest decision in Ms. Sneh Sood Vs. M/s. Bajwa Developers Ltd. in Consumer Complaint No.240 of 2016 decided on 23.02.2017 has ordered refund of the deposited amount of the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts till the date of actual refund.
7. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to refund the deposited amount of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs Ten thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the different dates of deposit of different amounts, till the actual date of refund. We also find that complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OPs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only). The present complaint stands allowed.
The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 31.08.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
