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

                                      Consumer Complaint No.231 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  22.03.2017                                         Date of decision   :  07.09.2017

Rajesh Kumar son of Ashok Kumar, resident of House No.2366, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh (now residing at House No.2487, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh).

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

The Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Mohali, Site Office, Sector 111-112, Mohali through its President/Vice President/ Secretary/Treasurer/Authorised representative.

                                                             ………. Opposite Party

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 Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Rajesh Kumar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The OP Society invited applications for becoming its members. The complainant also became member of the OP by submitting application form dated 25.02.2012 and paid Rs.10,000/- towards membership fee vide cheque.  For providing residential plots, the OP assured its members about purchase of land in the revenue estate of Mullanpur Part-II, Mohali.  The complainant also agreed to purchase 100 sq. yard plot @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. yard from the OP.   As per the terms and conditions supplied by the OP alongwith the payment schedule, it was mentioned that if the complainant does not want to continue even after paying some installments, he will be refunded the entire amount paid with 8% interest per annum after three years from the date of requisition.  It was further mentioned that the plot will be handed over physically not later than two years of registration/requisition.  The complainant paid to the OP Rs.84,000/- vide cheque on 25.02.2012 towards first installment and further paid Rs.1,26,000/- vide receipt dated 01.08.2012.  The complainant became member of the OP on 25.02.2012 but till date no possession has been handed over to him. However, without obtaining requisite permissions and approvals from the competent authorities, the OP started giving advertisements in the newspapers and also received hefty amounts from its members.   The complainant also came to know that CLU granted to the OP had been canceled by the authorities.  The OP had received a total amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from the complainant i.e. more than 25% of the cost of the plot.  The OP has enrolled more number of members than the plots available as per the approval and the GMADA has also taken cognizance of this fact and issued public notice in The Tribune on 28.02.2017. Thus, the act and conduct of the OP in receiving the amounts from the complainant is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence the complainant has sought direction to the OP to refund him the deposited amount of Rs.2,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the dates of deposit till realisation; to pay him Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.33,000/- as costs of litigation.  

2.             Shri Vikas Cuccria, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP and filed memo of appearance on 27.04.2017 and sought time to file POA/reply. Accordingly, the complaint was adjourned to 06.06.2017 for filing POA and reply. Thereafter, neither the POA/reply was filed nor anyone caused appearance on behalf of the OP.  Accordingly, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.06.2017.

3.             In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavits of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copy of receipts Ex.C-1 & C-3; terms and conditions Ex.C-2; bank statement Ex.C-4  and  public notice Ex.C-5.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite making more than 25% payment of 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 25.02.2012. Learned counsel has argued that the GMADA has issued notice dated 28.02.2017 which proves that the OP is indulging in unfair trade practice with the general public as well as the complainant 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.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence 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 OP an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- which is proved from the documents Ex.C-1, 3 and C-4.  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.  The complainant has proved notice dated 28.02.2017 Ex.C-5 issued by the GMADA which shows that the OP is indulging in unfair trade practice by receiving the amounts from the general public without having necessary approval/sanctions from the competent authorities. 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.   As the OP has not filed any reply and evidence to the complaint despite the fact that it had put in appearance through counsel on 27.04.2017 and thereafter not appeared which shows that the OP has nothing to say with regard to the averments of the complainant.   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.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Twenty 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 OP is 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: 07.09.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member