DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.162 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  27.02.2017                                             Date of decision   :  04.10.2018

Pankaj Mahajan son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of VPO Kuthera, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh 174026.

…….Complainant

Versus

Sky Rock City Welfare Society (Regd.), Sky Rock City, Sector 111-112, Mohali 160062 through its President Shri Navjeet Singh.

                                                        ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Ms. Rameet Bakshi, counsel for complainant

                OP ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, being in need of residential accommodation was allured by advertisements of OP to purchase 100 sq. yards of plot situate in  Sectors 111-112, Mohali of OP project. Price of the plot was Rs.11,88,000/- after 1% discount. Rs.10,000/- were deposited by complainant with OP on 01.08.2011 for becoming member of society and thereafter Rs.2,88,000/- more deposited through cheque on 31.12.2011, but Rs.3.00 lakhs on 12.06.2012. Agreement dated 10.01.2012 was executed between the parties. Thereafter complainant visited office of OP many times for payment of installments, but he was assured that the work of development of plot is in full swing and possession of the plot will be handed over to him in a short span of time. As complainant did not hear from OP even after lapse of 3-4 months, and as such he again visited office of OP number of times in bid of contacting President of OP society and getting due response. On some occasions office of OP was found locked. President of OP society never became available in office and even staff of OP was not cooperative. Complainant was shocked to know through various news items as if OP has collected money without getting approvals for floating of the project from appropriate authorities. Complainant got letter dated 18.05.2013 from OP for disclosing that he must not get panicky from the advertisements or the harassing calls. Even on receipts issued by OP, it is mentioned as if project in question is PUDA approved, but in fact it is not so. Thereafter complainant sent letters through registered post on 28.12.2013 and 27.01.2014, but no reply was received and that is why complainant had to file complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection earlier on 01.08.2014. That complaint No.488 of 2014 was disposed of being pre-mature. Appeal preferred before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh even was dismissed on 03.08.2015. Even Revision Petition No.3049 of 2015 preferred before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2015. It is claimed that OP has taken benefit of Clause-6 of the agreement which provides for refund of the entire amount with interest @ 8% per annum after three years from the date of requisition. Complainant requested for refund on 21.12.2013 for the first time, but refund amount has not been paid by OP. So this complaint filed after serving legal notice dated 19.01.2017 by claiming that OP has adopted unfair trade practice in accepting money, but not getting the requisite sanctions from GMADA and other authorities. It is claimed that OP is not in a position to handover possession and as such prayer made for refund of the paid amount of Rs.5,98,000/- with interest @15% per annum from the dates of deposits till realisation. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2.00 lakhs and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.             OP is ex-parte in this case but before that in view of non filing of written reply to the main complaint by OP within stipulated period, right of OP to file written statement was struck off vide orders dated 27.06.2017.

3.             After striking of right of OP to file written statement, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14, copy of caveat petition Mark-A and copy of order of Hon’ble National Commission Mark-B and then closed evidence.  Thereafter sufficient chances were given to OP to produce evidence and even President of OP society Navjeet Singh was called in this Forum after issuance of production warrants, but after putting in appearance through counsel by OP, thereafter none appeared for OP and nor evidence produced and as such OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 20.09.2018.

4.             Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments of counsel for complainant heard and records gone through.

5.             Perusal of receipts Ex.C-1, Ex-C-2 and Ex.C-6 issued by OP reveals that amount of Rs.5,98,000/- in all including membership fee has been accepted by OP society from complainant, after complainant became member of OP society by submitting application form Ex.C-3. It was after becoming member of OP society by complainant that agreement Ex.C-4 was arrived at between parties. Through agreement Ex.C-4 OP offered to provide 100 sq. yards of plot @ Rs.12,000/- per sq. yard with 1% discount on the total amount. Demand of Rs.3.00 lakhs was put forth through Ex.C-5 and that is why complainant deposited Rs.3.00 lakhs through receipt Ex.C-6 dated 12.06.2012 with OP. Even welcome letter Ex.C-7 was issued in favour of complainant after he became member of OP society. Refund of deposited amount of Rs.5,98,000/- sought by complainant by sending registered notices Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013. After sending of notices Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 earlier complaint filed in this Forum for seeking refund of the amount, but said complaint was dismissed being premature and that order was affirmed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab due to which revision petition had to be preferred before Hon’ble National Commission.

6.             Copy of order dated 09.12.2015 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in revision petition No.3049 of 2015 is produced on record as Mark-B. Perusal of Mark-B reveals that representative of present OP stated before the Hon’ble National Commission that OP will make endeavour to pay the entire amount alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit immediately after 20.12.2016. In view of that statement, the revision petition was dismissed as withdrawn, but with clarification that in case the present OP fails to make payment as per statement, then the present complainant will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief available to him as per law. Despite those orders contained in Mark-B, payment has not been made at all and as such it is obvious that OP has failed to abide by the terms of compromise arrived at before Hon’ble National Commission vide which promise was made for refunding the entire amount with interest immediately after 20.12.2016. As OP did not bother for the undertaking suffered before the Hon’ble National Commission and as such same aggravated sufferings of complainant resulting in filing of this very complaint. Refund in this case for the first time sought through Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and as such it is obvious that OP by taking benefit of technicalities of terms and conditions of agreement, earlier got the complaint of complainant dismissed on the ground of complaint being premature, but with assurance of refunding the amount.  That assurance not fulfilled by OP deliberately and as such in view of these special circumstances, it is fit and appropriate to allow interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amount with effect from the dates of deposits.

7.             This complaint has been filed after serving legal notice Ex.C-10 on OP and as such it is obvious that complainant has been harassed unnecessarily by OP due to which as a measure of compensation, interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of deposits should be allowed.  Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13 are copies of correspondence with Additional Registrar of Societies or with GMADA for seeking information as to whether colony of OP is PUDA approved or not. Through Ex.C-12 intimation was provided to counsel for complainant as if the colony in question approved vide license No.18 dated 06.05.2014, but despite that the plot not made available to complainant since from long i.e. even after acceptance of last payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs on 12.06.2012 and as such sufferings of complainant stood aggravated due to inaction on part of OP in not developing the project. As OP has not come to contest and as such reasonable amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment and of litigation expenses should be allowed, more so when as a special measure by keeping in view the circumstances of this case, interest @ 12% per annum on the deposited amounts has been allowed with effect from the dates of deposits till payment.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte by directing OP to refund the received amount of Rs.5,98,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the dates of deposits till payment.  Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.20,000/-  (Rs. Twenty thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 04, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                       (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member