BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.521 of 2014
Date of institution: 22.08.2014
Date of Decision: 10.06.2015
Harbans Singh son of Sr. Daulat Singh, resident of House No.288, New Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Sky Rock City Co-operative House Building Society, SCO No.26, 1st Floor, Phase-2, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its President.
2. The President, The Sky Rock City Welfare Society, SCO No.672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri A.K. Maleri, counsel for the complainant.
Col. T.S. Sidhu, authorized representative of the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) allot the plot alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- or in the alternative to refund the whole deposited amount of Rs.7,60,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
(b) pay him Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment
(c) pay him Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he was enrolled as member of the society upon payment of Rs.10,000/- on 27.11.2011 vide receipt Ex.C-1. He opted for allotment of a 3 BHK Flat at Rs.30,00,000/- to be paid in scheduled installments as per schedule Ex.C-3. The OPs vide letter dated 29.11.2011 Ex.C-4 acknowledged the registration of the complainant and receipt of Rs.7,50,000/- vide receipts Ex.C-4 and C-5. As per condition No.5 of schedule of payment, the possession of the flat was to be handed over within two years of registration. The complainants paid a total sum of Rs.7,60,000/- towards the installment of total basic price of the plot including EDC. Despite receipt of this amount, the possession of the flat had not been handed over to the complainant within two years from the date of registration. Non delivery of possession after receipt of entire payment is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. Upon notice, Shri Hittan Nehra, Advocate appeared for the OPs and filed power of attorney on 31.10.2014 and the case was adjourned to 14.11.2014. Thereafter, no written statement was filed by the OPs even imposition of costs. Ultimately vide order dated 05.02.2015 the defence of the OPs was struck off.
3. Evidence of the complainant consist of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.
4. Evidence of the Ops consist of affidavit of Navjeet Singh Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of the OPs and gone through their written arguments.
6. As per Ex.C-2 the complainant has applied for 3 BHK Flat and the OPs have admitted in Para No.11 of the affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 the application for 3 BHK flat and has admitted having received payment of Rs.7,60,000/- from the complainant. In order to support his case that despite having made substantial amount he has not been given possession of the flat, except for showing the receipts Ex.C-4 to C-7 regarding payment of Rs.7,60,000/- to the OPs, the complainant has not produced any document on record to show the terms and conditions governing the transactions between the parties. Neither the OPs have produced any document to show the terms and conditions of the transaction.
7. During the course of proceedings, an effort was made by this Forum to get the issue resolved amicably between the parties as the complainant was still willing and ready to accept the possession of the flat provided all basic amenities of sewerage, water pipes etc. are in place in the fully developed project of the OPs. Therefore, an opportunity was granted to both the parties to visit the site to have the first hand account. As per Ex.C-8 the complainant visited the office of the OPs as well as the site office but the OPs have not cooperated with him as the OPs remained absent during the visit of the complainant. Therefore, the matter could not be settled amicably between the parties.
8. Since the grievance of the complainant is non delivery of possession of the flat against the sale consideration of which, the complainant has already paid admittedly Rs.7,60,000/-, in order to examine whether the act of the OPs in not delivering the possession to the complainant is an act of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice or not, the terms and conditions of the transactions duly binding on the parties are essential to be examined. In the absence of terms and conditions on record from either of the parties, we are unable to appreciate the concerns of the complainant. However, the perusal of some documents attached by the OPs i.e. Ex.OP-5 dated 06.05.2014 i.e. the license to develop a colony clearly shows that the OPs holding a valid license to develop the residential colony namely Sky Rock City and this license is valid from 06.05.2014 to 05.05.2017. Thus, it is ample clear that the OPs being a valid license holder having the validity of license till 05.05.2017 are well within rights to complete the development work of residential colony after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Estate officer, GMADA.
9. Thus, in the absence of any terms and conditions governing the transaction between the parties, on record, the bald allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is of no help to the complainant to prove his case.
10. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 10, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
