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

                                  Consumer Complaint No.243 of 2015

                                                Date of institution:  26.05.2015                                         Date of decision   :  17.08.2016

Naresh Gupta son of Kanwar Bhan Gupta, resident of House No.1342, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.     Suresh Kumar Verma, M/s. R.K. Verma, Property Consultant, SCO 543, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.     M/s. R.K. Verma, Property Consultant, SCO 2407-08, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

        (OP No.2 given up from the array of the OPs by the counsel for the complainant  vide statement dated 01.10.2015).

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14

of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                           Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri A.K. Maleri, counsel for the complainant.

                Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.

                Opposite Party No.2 given up.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Naresh Gupta son of Kanwar Bhan Gupta, resident of House No.1342, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh,  has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had  entered into an agreement with Smt. Baljit Kaur wife of late Sardev Singh Sandhu & others for purchase of a built up house No.1554, Sector 69, SAS Nagar (Mohali) measuring 500 sq. yards for a sale consideration of Rs.4.00 crores through OP No.1 on behalf of OP No.2, who are the registered property consultants with GMADA. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.45.00 lacs to Smt. Baljit Kaur and others vide receipts dated 15.02.2011. The last date for completion of the deal was fixed on or before 15.05.2011. An agreement to sell was also executed between the complainant and Smt. Baljit Kaur and others. The commission for settling the abovesaid deal was fixed as 1% of the consideration amount which comes to Rs.4,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  in cash was paid by the complainant to OP No.1 at the time of biana on 15.02.2011. As the complainant apprehended something fishy despite his willingness for completion of the deal, he wrote letters dated 01.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 through registered post for completion of the sale deed, which were received back by the complainant as ‘unclaimed’. On the date of completion of the bargain i.e. on 15.05.2011, the vendee did not turn up although the complainant remained present in the office of Sub Registrar throughout the day. As the deal was not materialized, the complainant filed a suit for specific performance against the vendee in the civil courts at Mohali on 18.01.2012 by levying a court fee of Rs.9,05,000/-. During pendency of the civil suit, OP No.1 approached the complainant about materialization of the sale deed provided the complainant pay the remaining payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards commission of the OPs. The complainant succumbed to the pressure and paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to OP No.1 on 11.06.2013 against receipt for completing the deal. However, even after payment of entire commission to the OPs, the deal could not be materialized and even the OPs stooped taking the phone calls from the complainant. The civil suit was finally compromised in the National Lok Adalat with the vendees as they refunded the biana amount of Rs.45,00,000/- to the complainant on 23.11.2013. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the OPs many a times for refund of the commission amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as the OPs failed to perform their part in materializing the deal. The act and conduct of the OPs shows clear cut unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4.00 lacs alongwith past, pendentilite and future interest @ 15% per annum from the date of payment till realisation; payment of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment  alongwith Rs.22,000/- as litigation costs.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant vide his statement recorded on 01.10.2015 gave up OP No.2 from the array of the OPs. Service to OP No.1 was effected through publication but none appeared for it, therefore, OP No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.12.2015.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of receipts Ex.C-1 & C-2; agreement to sell Ex.C-3; certificate of registration Ex.C-4; letters dated 01.04.2011 and 20.04.2011 alongwith postal receipts Ex.C-5 to C-8;  original envelopes Ex.C-9 and C-10; receipt alongwith affidavit Ex.C-11; receipt of Rs.3.00 lacs Ex.C-12; copy of civil suit dated 18.01.2012 Mark-A and copy of order dated 23.11.2013 in civil suit Mark-B.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings and evidence.

6.                The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that the OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as commission/service provider, for materializing the deal for purchasing a house. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant even filed a suit for specific performance and thereby the matter was compromised before the ld. National Lok Adalat and the OP No.2 refunded the token amount. He also pleaded that since the deal for purchase of the said house could not be finalized, the OP No.1 was liable to refund the commission charged for the said purpose. The ld. counsel argued that the OP No.1 undertook to get the deal for purchase of the house finalized but he failed to do so. He further argued that the OP No.1 has indulged in unfair trade practice by not refunding the payment received as he was unable to render the services as promised.

7.             After hearing the ld. counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments and written submissions, it is established from the affidavit of the complainant i.e Ex.CW-1, receipt dated 11/06/2013 that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as commission for purchasing a house at Sector 69, SAS Nagar. It is also established that the matter was compromised between the parties before the National Lok Adalat vide order dated 23/11/2013 i.e Mark-B and the OP No.2 had refunded the token amount. In our opinion, since the deal with regard to the purchase of house could not be completed, the OP No.1 was also liable to refund the commission charged for finalizing the deal between the parties.

8.             Accordingly, we are of the view that that OP No.1 did not render the services for which said commission was charged by him from the complainant, hence the OP No.1 indulged in unfair trade practice. Thus, we direct the OP No.1 to refund a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lacs only) to the complainant. We also find that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rs.Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only).

                The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise OP No.1 shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded. The present complaint is hereby accepted. 

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.08.2016 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: 17.08.2016    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

  (Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                  Member