Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 591.
Instituted on : 08.10.2021.
Decided on : 11.07.2023
Dr.Saroj Dahiya age 48 years, w/o Dr. Subhash Chander R/o H.No.1554, Sector-3, HUDA, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager, Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Office at C-(7A), 2nd Floor, Omax City Centre Sohna Road, Gurugram 122001.
- The Director/Manager, Pareena Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at Flat no.2,. Palm Apartment, Plot no.13B, Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.S.K.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she applied for residential apartment in the project of opposite parties on 10.05.2014 and paid Rs.500000/- through cheque no.915859 dated 31.03.2014 and receipt no.198 was issued by opposite parties. Complainant again paid an amount of Rs.670125/- vide cheque no.915861/- dated 31.05.2014 vide receipt no.360 on demand of respondents. In the year 2015 the complainant had contacted the respondents through e-mail on 15.07.2015 and also went to their office regarding refund of the amount as there was no progress in the project. The respondents never replied to the mails of complainant and only fake assurances were given by the opposite parties. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the total deposited amount of Rs.1170125/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.20000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the present complaint is highly time barred as the complainant had applied for the residential apartment on 31.03.2014 and submitted an application on 10.05.2014. However the present complaint has been filed on 08.10.2021. On merits, it is denied that the complainant contacted the answering opposite parties regarding refund of the amount as there was no progress in the project. It is also denied that the answering opposite parties never replied to the emails of the complainant or that fake assurances were given to the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant by way of e-mail requested the answering opposite parties for refunding whole of the amount of Rs.1170125/- giving reason that she is in urgent need due to unavoidable circumstances. The answering opposite parties however declined the request of the complainant vide e-mail dated 05.10.2015 as the application form submitted by the complainant is in the nature of contract/agreement between the complainant and answering opposite parties and thus requested the complainant to make the payment of due installments failing which allotment shall be canceled and earnest money shall be forfeited. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant on the same set of allegations and in respect of the matter in dispute had filed a complaint dated 10.07.2018 before Chief Minister, Haryana/Economic Offences Wing, Gurugram. The answering opposite parties are not liable to refund the amount of Rs.1170125/- or interest or any other amount on any account as there has been no fault of the answering opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 02.09.2022. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence on 02.03.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1170125/- with the opposite parties on account of purchase of residential apartment in Sector 68 Gurugram, as is proved from the receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 amounting to Rs.500000/- and Rs.670125/- respectively. As per complainant there was no progress in the project, so she requested the opposite parties to refund the amount. But till date the amount has not been refunded to the complainant. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not deposited the installments with the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to refund the amount.
6. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The complainant has submitted his application for allotment of residential apartment on 31.03.2014 and deposited an amount of Rs.5 lakh as earnest money. Thereafter he deposited an amount of Rs.670125/- on dated 31.05.2014. Application is placed on record as Ex.C1, whereas the respondent also placed on record the application form as Ex.R2 alongwith terms and conditions of the project. On dated 15.07.2015 complainant sent a mail to the respondent with the request to refund the deposited amount to the complainant. Thereafter an another mail was also sent on 05.10.2015. Another mail was also sent to the opposite party on 28.09.2021. During this period the respondent allotted a unit to the complainant on dated 05.09.2016. The allotment letter is Ex.R8. After perusal of the documents we came into the conclusion that in the application form Ex.C1, the time period of allotment of the unit/residential apartment has not been mentioned by the builder anywhere. Moreover it has not been mentioned that in how many days the project will be started or in how many days project will be completed and the possession of the residential unit will be handed over to the allottees/plot holders. The above mentioned terms and conditions are mandatory and should be mentioned by the opposite party in the application form as per the judgments of apex court. In the present case the amount has been deposited in the month of March 2014 and request for refund has been made by the complainant on 15.07.2015 because the builder has not started any construction work on the site. Moreover the allotment has been made by the builder after a delay of more than 2 years 5 months i.e. 05.09.2016. So the project has not been started by the builder well within time. Hence the demand of the complainant is genuine one.
7. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.1170125/-(Rupees eleven lac seventy thousand one hundred and twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment of alleged amount to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.07.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member.
