DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.754 of 2016
Date of institution: 04.11.2016
Date of decision : 15.02.2018
Ishwar Chand son of Kashmiri Lal, resident of Village PO Khizrabad, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
The Sky Rock City Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., The Sky Rock City Welfare Society, Mohali, SCO No.26, First Floor, Phase-2, Mohali through its President.
……..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: Shri Maninder Singh Saini, cl. for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant, after getting information from the OP that it has requisite licenses alongwith necessary approvals and clearances from the concerned authorities qua promoting and developing the residential accommodation project in Mullanpur, became member of the OP society by depositing membership fee of Rs.5,000/- through receipt dated 10.07.2011. After his enrollment as member, complainant booked the plot measuring 150 sq. yards with OP after making payment of Rs.2,10,000/- vide cheque dated 23.06.2012 drawn on Central Cooperative Bank. Thereafter another payment of Rs.1,05,000/- was made through another cheque dated 04.08.2011. Copies of receipts dated 01.06.2012 and 10.07.2011 regarding these deposits are produced alongwith complaint for showing as if the total amount paid was Rs.3,15,000/- in addition to the membership fee. As per Clause-5 of terms and conditions settled between the parties, OP was to handover possession of the plot to complainant within a period of 2 years from the date of registration, but despite that said possession has not been handed over within the stipulated period of 2 years from the date of booking. Despite repeated visits to office of OP and submitting numerous representations, the matter is kept on lingering. Further complainant claims to have got information as if the project has been declared illegal and GMADA has cancelled the developers and promoters license of OP. Even complainant got information about the fraudulent activities of the OP through various news items. OP even refused to refund the paid amount despite demand and as such by claiming that the OP has adopted unfair trade practice, prayer made for refund of the paid amount of Rs.3,20,000/- including Rs.5,000/- as membership fee. Interest @ 18% per annum sought. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1,00,000/-; compensation for providing deficient services of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.
2. OP failed to submit reply and as such vide orders dated 10.03.2017 it was debarred from filing written reply.
3. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-6 and Mark-A and thereafter closed evidence.
4. Evidence of OP was closed by order on 26.09.2017 because of repeated non appearance by OP and tender of evidence. As OP has not appeared since 10.03.2017 till date and as such OP treated as ex-parte.
5. Oral arguments of counsel for complainant heard and records gone through.
6. Contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant fully gets corroboration from contents of application form Ex.C-1 and request Ex.C-2 as well as receipt Ex.C-3 to the effect that complainant became member of OP society on deposit of Rs.5,000/- as membership fee on 10.07.2011. It was after becoming of the complainant as member of the OP society, that he deposited Rs.2,10,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-4 dated 01.06.2012, but Rs.1,05,000/- more through receipt Ex.C-5 dated 10.07.2011. So certainly complainant able to establish that he deposited a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- in addition to membership fee of Rs.5,000/-.
7. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the complainant that initial act of enrolling complainant as member itself was unfair trade practice because OP society never obtained the requisite licenses or permissions for developing colony before announcing publically about the initiation of project, in which site was to be provided to complainant. It is the case of complainant that GMADA and other authorities have cancelled the licenses granted to OP for initiating the project in question and as such certainly there is no utility for the complainant to remain member of OP society. It is not a case in which complainant expressed desire for discontinuance as a member of society nor it is the case in which complainant expressed desire to not remain interested in seeking the plot. Being so, Clause-4 of terms and conditions Ex.C-6 not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Clause-5 of Ex.C-6 provides that possession of plot will be handed over physically not later than two years of registration/requisition. The dates on which requests submitted by complainant not disclosed and nor dates of numerous visits by complainant to OP for seeking possession of the plot or for seeking refund of entire amount disclosed in the complaint. The date on which complainant got information regarding cancellation of developers and promoters license of OP even not specified. So the particulars are vague as to when complainant got intimation about the alleged illegal act of OP of seeking deposits. Request for refund in writing even never shown to be submitted to OP by complainant in time and as such in view of these circumstances, it is fit and appropriate to order refund of amount deposited by complainant in toto with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of complaint namely 04.11.2016 till payment. It is so because on vague and general allegations, relief cannot be granted. As date of seeking of refund not disclosed and as such allegations regarding seeking of refund by complainant from OP remains vague and general one. However, complainant suffered lot of mental tension and agony because he remained unable to get possession within stipulated period of two years from the date of last deposit of amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 01.06.2012 and as such complainant entitled to compensation for mental harassment and agony alongwith litigation expenses. Mitigating circumstances in this case remains that OP has not contested the claim virtually and that is why it did not file reply and nor adduced evidence and nor anyone appeared on its behalf for many dates. So quantum of litigation expenses assessed to Rs.5,000/- in such circumstances.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OP to refund the received amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of complaint namely 04.11.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order.
Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it is the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly. This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
February 15, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
