BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 394 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 28.06.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 02.05.2011 |
1. Dr.Navjot Singh son of C.S.Gandhi r/o H.No.662-A, Phase-11, Mohali. 2. Dr.Mrs. Maninder Kaur wife Dr.Navjot Singh r/o H.No.662-A, Phase-11, Mohali. ….…Complainants V E R S U S 1. Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (TDI) through its Managing Director, Registered Office 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2 Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (TDI) through its Local Area Head, SCO No.1098-99, First Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Indresh Goel, Adv. for complainant. Sh.H.S.Lalli, Adv. for OPs PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that they in response to the advertisement of the OP, applied for registration of allotment of a residential plot of size 250 sq.yds. in the upcoming projects in Mohali in TDI City, Phase-II on 27.03.2008, vide application Annexure C-1. Alongwith the application, he attached a cheque/DD/Pay order for Rs.6,87,500/- as 25% cost of the plot. The complainants were allotted plot measuring 250 sq. yards vide letter dated 18.09.2008 and required to further deposit Rs.5.50 lacs. The complainants were directed to make the payment failing which the allotment would be cancelled. It is further averred that vide letter dated 28.11.2009, the complainants enquired about the development if any and the tentative time by which the project was likely to be completed as the payment is not the sole criteria of the contract but the OP failed to give any response. According to the complainants, the land on which the plots were to be located had not been acquired by OP as yet and there were no roads to the site and no sewerage material was there at site. It is further the case of the complainants that they had received information from GMADA that the proposed township of OP has been cleared and they have been debarred from developing the site in question and indulging into any advertisement or sale of plots till the disposal of matter by the Department. It is the grouse of the complainants that instead of replying their queries, the OP vide letter dated 15.01.2010 (Annexure C-5) had cancelled the registration of the plot without any rhyme or reason. Thereafter, the complainants served a legal notice dated 4.3.2010 to refund the deposited amount but to no effect, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, hence, this complaint. 2. OP filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections and denying the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainants submitted an application for advanced registration of 250 sq. yards plot in the project of the replying OP on 02.02.2008 and paid Rs.6,87,500/- vide cheque dated 07.02.2008 out of the total amount of Rs.27.50 lacs. It has also been stated that it was only registration charges for the allotment of a plot and not allotment of a plot. It is pleaded that OPs sent the letter/intimation dated 18.09.2008. OPs denied if the complainants had ever visited the site. They submitted that OPs have purchased the land and had paid the dues to the government to obtain the CLU and the layout had already been approved by the competent authority. They submitted that the registration was rightly cancelled vide letter dated 15.01.2010 by them as the complainants had not paid the balance outstanding amount despite reminders. They further submitted that no agreement/contract had been entered into between the parties, therefore there was no question of any obligation on the part of OPs to comply with the conditions of the application form. Denying all the material allegations of the complainants, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The complainants filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and denying all the allegations of the OPs made in the written statement 4. The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.6,87,500/- has been deposited by the complainants with the OP as is evident from Annexure C-1. Annexure C-2 is the copy of intimation regarding priority allotment of the plot. The contention of the complainants is that in fact this plot has been allotted only on papers and the OPs have not purchased any land, there is no development such as roads, sewerage or electricity poles nor the OPs have obtained the permission from the Government for change of nature of land and therefore the allotment vide Annexure C-2 cannot be made operative. The OPs have disputed this contention, however they have not produced any document to suggest if they have purchased any land for this project. The OPs have not obtained any letter of permission from the Government for the change of nature of land use to set up a colony. The contention of the complainants therefore appears to be correct that the allotment of plot has been made only on papers and not at the spot. Thus, it is held that all appears to have been done to dodge the complainants and other prospective purchasers by showing them that they have been allotted plots, when actually no plot existed at site. Collecting money from the public on the assurance of allotting plots, when neither the land has been acquired for establishing a colony, nor any permission has been obtained, amounts to an unfair trade practice by which the OP is unjustly enriching itself. 7. The OPs have not been able to show as to whether the plots have been developed at the site, roads and electric pipes have been laid at the spot. The OPs have failed to refund the deposits amount despite repeated requests of the complainants and service of legal notice. In our considered view, non-refund of the deposited amount after the cancellation of the plot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 8. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to refund Rs.6,87,500/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective date of its deposit till realization along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 9. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 02.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
