DATE OF FILING: 11.03.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.06.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Smt. Jhuni Mishra has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that being motivated to the sweet words and seeing the documents as placed by the O.Ps, the complainant agreed to purchase a flat at Puri and accordingly after execution of an agreement between the complainant and the O.Ps on dated 19.12.2011 the complainant has paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in shape of cheque bearing No. 011238 dated 19.12.2011 drawn at ICICI Bank, Berhampur. After receiving the said cheque the O.Ps have issued money receipt bearing No.510 and promised to allot the flat No.530 situated in Block-D under the “WINGS MANOR” Apartment scheme at Puri and assured the complainant to deliver the physical possession of the said flat within 22 months from the date of execution of the agreement dated 19.12.2011 with a grace period another two months. After lapse of the agreement period of twenty two months of the said agreement dated 19.12.2011 and also of the grace period, on enquiry of the complainant she came to know that neither the O.Ps have purchased any land nor have obtained any permission from concerned authority for construction of residential apartment at Puri. After knowing such fact, the complainant approached the O.Ps in person and expressed her desire not to purchase any flat at assured by them and requested to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by her towards advance amount, but the O.Ps on some pretext or other avoided to return the said amount. The complainant issued a registered legal notice on dated 30.03.2013 through her advocate demanding for payment of said advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 15 days of receiving of the said legal notice alongwith 18% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt till actual realization of the same. Though the O.Ps received the said notice on 01.04.2013 but did not turn for payment of the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to return back the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the dates of execution of the agreement, compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and harassment, financial loss, mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties but the O.P.No.1 neither preferred to appear nor filed any written version as such the O.P. No.1 set exparte on dated 09.08.2016. As per request of the complainant the O.P.No.2’s name is deleted on dated 08.08.2017.
4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case record and also perused the materials on the case record. We have also thoughtfully considered the submission made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. Despite several persuasions the O.Ps did not heed to consider the grievance of the complainant. It reveals from the record that the O.P.No.1 has executed an agreement with the complainant to sale plot as well as flat and agreed to allot the flat No. 530 situated in Block-D under the “WINGS MANOR” apartment scheme. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance through cheque but within the stipulated period or grace period as per terms and conditions of the agreement, O.P.No.1 did not hand over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant. After enquiry the complainant got to know that O.P.No.1 has neither purchased any plot nor has obtained any permission from any authority for construction of the flat. As such the complainant issued pleader notice through her advocate to O.P.No.1 stating there in to refund the advance money i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- but O.P.No.1 did not respond. Hence, it is clear evident that O.P.No.1 is negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant.
5. On foregoing discussion and taking the sole testimony of the complainant into consideration, we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1. Law is well settled in case of Punjab National Bank versus Meerut Development Authority reported in 2008 (4) CPR 473 where it is held by the Hon’ble National CDR Commission Delhi that “Delay in delivering possession of house/flat after receiving full amount for same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. authority”.
In view of the above decision of law, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to the complainant alongwith 8% interest per annum from the date of filing this case i.e. on 11.03.2014 within 60 days from receipt of this order. Further the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for compensation alongwith Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant within the above stipulated period failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 18th June 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
