BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.622 of 2014
Date of institution: 21.10.2014
Date of Decision: 26.06.2015
Dinesh Kumar son of Rajinder Sain, House No.1235 A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
The Sky Rock City Co-operative House Building Society, SCO 672, First Floor, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Punjab
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Munish Goel, counsel for the complainant.
None for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
- refund him the deposited amount of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum.
(b) pay him Rs.2,00,000/- on account of increase in cost of construction.
(c) pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and tension.
(c) pay him Rs.33,000/- as litigation costs.
The case of the complainant is that the OP launched a scheme for allotment of plots measuring 200 sq. yards @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. yards with total price of the plot Rs.16,00,000/-. The complainant booked one plot measuring 200 sq. yard by paying Rs.10,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-2. It was mentioned on the back of receipt Ex.C-2 that in case the complainant does not want to continue even after paying some installment, he would be refunded the entire amount with interest after three years from the date of registration. Thereafter, on the demand of the OP, the complainant deposited Rs.1,60,000/- vide receipt dated 27.11.2011 Ex.C-3 and Rs.2,40,000/- vide receipt dated 24.07.2012 Ex.C-4. At the time of booking, the OP assured the complainant that the possession would be given within one year from the date of booking i.e. upto 20.07.2012. The complainant had been asking the OP about the giving of physical possession of the plot but no intimation has been given to him. The complainant also came to know that the OP had no land to given to the complainant and the OP also did not have requisite permission/sanctions from the concerned departments. The complainant vide letter dated 27.08.2012 requested the OP to refund the deposited amount of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest. This letter was followed by reminder dated 25.10.2012 and the OP assured that refund would be made by 15.01.2013. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP number of times but without any result. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. Shri Hittan Nehra, Advocate appeared for the OP on 02.12.2014 and filed power of attorney. The matter was adjourned to 18.12.2014 for filing written reply by the OP. Reply was not filed rather the OP moved two application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground (i) the complaint is pre mature and (ii) that there exists an arbitration clause in the terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Both the applications were dismissed and thereafter the OP has omitted to file any reply to the complaint and the complaint was proceeded against the OP.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-9.
4. To rebut the allegations of the complainant, the OP tendered the affidavit of Navjeet Singh Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter no other document was tendered in evidence.
5. We have the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file. Neither the written arguments were filed by the OP nor did anybody appear on their behalf to address the oral arguments.
6. It is evident that the complainant is a Member of the society since 20.07.2011 and has paid the membership amount of Rs.5000/- vide Ex.C-2 and has further made various payments against the sale consideration of plot measuring 200 sq. yards @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. yards. In all the complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.4,05,000/- on various occasions vide receipts Ex.C-2 to C-4. As per terms and conditions mentioned on the overleaf of the receipts Ex.C-2 to C-4, the plot was to be handed over to the complainant not later than three years of the registration/requisition. The complainant is given liberty to work out from the scheme after seeking refund of the deposited amount alongwith 8% rate of interest per annum after three years from the registration. The grievance of the complainant is that since there was no development of the land, there was no development of the land, therefore, he has made a request vide Ex.C-5 which was registered letter sent to the OP and having been acknowledged by the OP to refund the deposited amount by end of December, 2012. Still the amount has not been refunded. The complainant is aggrieved by the acts of omission and commission of the OP for not refunding the amount which is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
7. Therefore, the issue of dispute between the parties is non refund of the deposited amount. The complainant has deposited a total sum of Rs.4,05,000/- as part of the sale consideration of 200 sq. yards plot @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. yard alongwith Rs.5,000/- as membership fee.
8. As per terms and conditions mentioned in the receipt Ex.C-2 to C-4 the complainant was well within his right to seek the refund. Therefore while invoking the said right, the complainant has made a written request dated 27.08.2012 followed by registered letter dated 15.10.2012 Ex.C-5 for seeking refund of the deposited amount. The OP on the body of Ex.C-5 has admitted the deposited amount and have agreed to refund by December, 2012 as is evident from the signatures and seal of the OP mentioned on Ex.C-6. The said date for refund has been further extended by the OP as 15.01.2013. Even after expiry of the extended date the payment has not been refunded to the complainant as is ample clear from the affidavit of the OP which is silent about the refund made, if any, to the complainant.
9. The OP cannot wriggle out from its own admission and acknowledgement as mentioned on the body of Ex.C-5. The act of the OP for not refunding the said amount is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble National Commission titled as Vikas Parchhanda & others Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd. in Consumer Case No.434 of 2014 decided on 08.06.2015 in support of contentions made in the complaint.
10. Thus, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:
- to refund to the complainant Rs.4,05,000/- (Rs. Four lacs five thousand only) deposited as a part payment against sale of 200 sq. yard plot at the promised rate of Rs.8,000/- per sq. yard. The said amount be refunded to the complainant alongwith prevailing rate of interest per annum w.e.f. 20.07.2012 i.e. after one year of the date of registration Ex.C-2 till realization.
(b) to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 26, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
