Surinder Nath Sharma complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite party may be directed to deliver the ownership and possession of the plot measuring 166.66 sq yard situated at Sunny Enclave Mohali to him or to return the amount of Rs.12,30,618/- alongwith 24% interest till date to the him including Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an Ex-serviceman of Indian Army and he retired from the MES at the post of supervisor. It was pleaded that after retirement of complainant the officers of opposite parties met with him at his house at Hari Darbar Colony, Gurdaspur and told him that they had formed a “Sainik Welfare Organization” which is approved by Govt. of India and is a legal and genuine organization who is doing the job for the welfare of the Ex.Serviceman. It was further pleaded that opposite parties requested the complainant for the booking of plot in Sunny Enclave Mohali 166.66 sq. Yds through “Sainik Welfare Organization” i.e. opposite parties who shall complete all the formalities of plot and shall hand over the possession to the complainant within stipulated period of time of 12 month from the date of application. Complainant met opposite parties No.1 and 2 who assured him that they shall be responsible for any lapse and losses to him and shall compensate to him in case if they do not deliver the plot in question to the complainant. It was also pleaded that on the assurance of the opposite parties complainant gave his consent to purchase a plot of 166.66 sq. yds in “Sunny Enclave” Mohali under the project namely “Defence Colony” and he signed on the application form/agreement dated 19.07.2010 at his residence in the presence of his son and relative. It was next pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the application form/agreement dated 19.07.2010, complainant transferred Rs.3,08,000/- and Rs.31,175/- on the same day of agreement in the account of opposite parties through his Bank ICICI Bank Branch Gurdaspur and thereafter complainant deposited Rs.3,08,000/- on 13.10.2010 through ICICI Bank of above said branch into the account of the opposite party and again deposited Rs.3,08,000/- to opposite parties through the above said Bank dated 17.01.2011 and lastly on 31.03.2011 complainant pay Rs.2,72,065/- to opposite party through bank draft No.035837 of Bank of India Branch Gurdaspur and as such complainant had paid total sum of Rs.12,26,618/- and Rs.4500/- as processing fee to opposite party as per agreement dated 19.07.2010. It was pleaded that as per the above said agreement dated 19.07.2010 rebate of 5% on the total amount was to be paid to the complainant if he deposited all the consideration money within 6 months. Complainant deposited more than Rs.12,26,618/- in the account of the opposite parties for plot No.266 of 166.66 sq. Yds in “Defence Colony”, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, Mohali as per the above said agreement and  on 11 June, 2015 NOC was issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant but till date opposite parties failed to deliver the possession of the plot in question  to the complainant and as such opposite parties breached/violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and cheated the complainant on the name of Sainik Organization for which opposite parties are liable for prosecution. Complainant also served a legal notice upon the opposite parties and requested them to deliver the possession of plot in question but opposite parties refused to do so, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties but opposite parties did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.2.2018.     

4.      Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence.

5.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as made available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the participating litigant) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the intentional non-participation of the prime opposite party service providers (colonizing agency) the OP1 Organization & the OP2 Colonel Director; instead preferring ex-parte proceedings, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the litigating complainant.

6.       We find that the Complainant had on record booked (affidavit Ex.CW1/A) one residential plot (166.66 sq yd) in Sunny Enclave, Mohali under their project ‘Defense-Colony’ by filing the prescribed application (Ex.C1) and due remittance through Receipt (Ex.C2) on 19.07.2010. Further, the complainant did remit the full plot price of Rs.1,226, 618/- (plus Rs.4,500/- as processing fee) by 31.03.2011 vides Receipts (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) and had to get served one legal notice (Ex.C6) upon the titled opposite parties seeking delivery of plot possession but had to file the present consumer-complaint to seek justice at the face of refusal at the OP’s end. The above mentioned Plot-Booking was duly acknowledged/receipted by the OP1 organization as duly proved vide the Bank A/c Statements (Ex.C7 & Ex.C8), Payment Receipts (Ex.C9 & Ex.C10), NOC (Ex.C11) and Allotment/ Allocation Letters (Ex.C12 & Ex.C13) and its delivery as duly confirmed vide postal Receipts (Ex.C14 & Ex.C15). However, the booked plot was never delivered to the present complainant even during the pendency of the present proceedings and that entitles the present complaint to the one favorable statutory award under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.       We further find that the present complainant has successfully proved all his complaint-contented allegations vide his affidavit Ex.C1 and other evidentiary documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15; and further find that the OP1 organization and the OP2 Director’s preference to ex-parte proceedings (by staying absent from the same) to an otherwise lawful participation has further strengthened the trite judicial presumption that an intentional absentee/ex-parte litigant has no legs to stand in the witness box to plead his defense/no cogent and acceptable defense to plead. 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 ‘awardee’ and/or to cast undue excessive ‘distresses’ to the delinquent parties.            

8.       In the light of the all above, we find the hue of actionable statutory merit in the present complaint to partly allow the same and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to deliver an ownership registered title and physical possession to the allotted Plot of Land to the complainant or in the alternative refund him the full receipted plot-price amount besides to pay an aggregated amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost of litigation for the inflicted upon mental agony and harassment upon him. The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to execute compliance to the instant orders within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the same otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 6% PA from the date of the present orders till actual compliance/payment.  

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)

MAY. 25, 2018.                                                           Member               

*YP*