Randhir Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that his complaint may be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to him with 12% interest from the date of purchase. Complainant has further prayed that opposite parties may be burdened with compensatory cost to tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment including litigation expenses etc., in the interest of justice. Complainant has also prayed that any other relief to which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit be also granted in his favour and against the opposite parties
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties deals in the business of Plot/Flat/Commercial property so he had purchased office measuring 250 Sq. Ft. from the opposite parties vide application No.1266 and paid Rs.4,50,000/- from April 2012 to 2014 for earning his livelihood (Self Employment) and all the documents filed by the complainant at their local office Dinanagar i.e opposite party No.3 and as such he falls under the definition of consumer with the opposite parties. It was pleaded that mother of the complainant was suffering from serious ailment i.e. Heart disease and for her treatment complainant was required the huge amount and due to this reason, complainant was unable to make the payment of installment and made requests to the opposite parties many times orally as well as by written applications by post and courier for refund of Rs.4,50,000/-. It was further pleaded that complainant sent various applications to the opposite parties for the refund of the above said amount on 02.07.2014, 16.03.2015, 30.09.2015, 28.10.2015 and 26.04.2016 but of no use. Complainant has also annexed with the complaint medical record of his mother as well as photocopies of the above mentioned applications. It was also pleaded that a legal notice dated 04.05.2016 was also sent to the opposite parties by the complainant for the refund of the amount in question but opposite party No.2 assured the complainant they will refund the above said amount and on the assurance of the opposite party No.2 complainant visited the office of opposite party No.2 many times personally along with Sh.Jagjit Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of Thakurpur and Sh.Satgur Dass son of Sh.Ram Kishan, resident of village Thobra, Tehsil Distt. Pathankot but they are putting off the matter with one pretext or the other every time but as per the terms and conditions of the opposite parties complainant is entitled to refund the amount in dispute. It was next pleaded that complainant had suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposites parties and the whole act and conduct of the opposite parties itself shows deficiency in service on their part, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel but they failed to appear for filing of reply to come main complaint inspite of giving many opportunities and on 31.05.2017 they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Jagit Singh Ex.C2 along with documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C20 and closed his evidence.
5. We have intently perused and examined the pleadings/averments, documents/evidence as per the complainant along with the OP’s conduct by preferring absence after first participating in the proceedings and subsequently getting declared ‘ex-parte’ vide the forum’s orders dated 31.05.2017; of course in the back-drop of arguments supported by the superior court judgments as put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant. However, we find that the complainant has presently sought Refund/Repayment of the deposit of Rs.4,50,000/- as the one and the only relief at the face of his emergent need for the medical treatment of his ailing mother. Incidentally, the receipt of the alleged deposit and its refund (Ex.C10 & Ex.C18) are neither disputed nor contested and has been duly provided for as per the terms and conditions of the related contract/ agreement.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record in the light of the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some of the evidentiary documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced along with the scope of adverse inference that may be discretionarily/judicially drawn on account of the intentional non-participation/ex-parte proceedings by all the titled opposite parties despite the proven service/publication of summons; of course, in the very back-drop of the judicious discretionary liberty to draw an adverse ‘judicial inference’ by virtue of a plethora of superior courts judgments that the ex-parte respondents have no defense to prosecute and thus they instead preferred to go ‘ex-parte’. However, we (in line with the settled law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardees’ and/or to cast undue excessive ‘distresses’ to the delinquent parties.
7. We understand that the complainant has been in urgent need of funds for medical treatment etc of his mother and also, he is entitled to the penalty waive-off since the OPs could not deliver him possession of the Plot, in time, may be due to reasons beyond their control and comprehension.
8. Thus, in the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint can be best disposed of by directing the titled opposite parties to refund/repay the receipted amount of Rs.4,50,000/- sans any penalty etc to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 6% PA from the date of orders till actual repayment/refund etc.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 08, 2017. Member
*YP*
