Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/237/2015

Anuradha Rawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar Rai

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/237/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	17/04/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	11/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Anuradha Rawat w/o Sh. Suring Singh Rawat, resident of House No.9, Type 13-D, PGI Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

BCL Homes Limited, Registered Office: Shop No.140, Railway Road, Village Dariya, U.T. Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

 

Second Address:

 

Chinar Homes, Village Kishanpura, Adj. Sector 20, Panchkula, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

 

…… Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:          SH. P.L. AHUJA                                    PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                           MEMBER

                    SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                    In brief, being captivated by the various advertisements given by the Opposite Party in the newspapers and other printed media about its project, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and applied for a flat by paying Rs.50,000/- on 13.7.2011 vide receipt Annexure C-1. Thereafter, whenever the Complainant visited the Opposite Party for flat, he was put off on one pretext or the other. However, later the Complainant found that there was no land with the Opposite Party and there were no flats either. It was only after considerable persuasions, the Opposite Party agreed to return the amount and accordingly, issued a Cheque dated 10.7.2013 for Rs.58,078/- (Annexure C-2), which was dishonoured on 20.7.2013 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the Opposite Party (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 19.8.2013 upon the Opposite Party, but the same failed to fructify and the Complainant was constrained to file a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent court of law (Annexure C-4 to C-5). It has been alleged that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party a number of times to refund the amount, but the Opposite Party kept on lingering the matter.  When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 03.06.2015.

 

3.          Complainant led evidence.

 

 

4.          We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

5.          It is evident from Annexure C-1 dated 13.7.2011 that the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party towards the advance of the flat, which he applied in its project. The case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party did not deliver the allotment of the flat, in question to her on one pretext or another, and lingered on the matter as it did not have any land  or flat. Thereafter, after a number of visits of the complainant to the Opposite Party it refunded the amount deposited by the complainant and issued a cheque dated 10.7.2013 amounting to Rs.58,078 Annexure C-2 after lapse of about two years. But as is evident from Annexure C-3 rejection description issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on 20.7.2013 with remarks ‘funds insufficient’. Accordingly vide Annexure C-4 dated 19.8.2013 a legal notice was sent by the complainant to the Opposite Party, but to no result. Even the complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before the Competent Court of law (Annexure C-5).  However, despite giving ample opportunity to produce copy of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, the complainant could not produce the same. Ultimately arguments were heard and the case was reserved on 31.8.2015.

6. Undisputedly, the money of the complainant was refunded  by the Opposite Party as is evident from Annexure C-2 but the said cheque was dishonoured. In case the Opposite Party was not in a position to fulfill the requirement of the complainant as promised, it should have refunded the deposited amount to the complainant with interest after the request of the complainant through legal notice but it failed to do so.   The complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period for the fault of the Opposite Party and to go on suffering. 

7.          The Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted & uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party is proved.

 

8.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed, to:-

 

 

[a] To refund Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant being the price of the flat, in question, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 13.7.2011.

 

[b] To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

9.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.   It is made clear that if the complaint of complainant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is accepted, then the amount allowed in para 8(a) of this order shall be deducted from the amount of payment directed by learned CJM, Chandigarh.

 

10.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11^th  September, 2015                                             

sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER