Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/906/2019

Jyoti Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Deepshikha Chauhan Adv. & Gurjot Singh Sadhrao Adv.

01 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	906/2019
Date of Institution	:	06.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.04.2021

 

                                 

                    

 

Jyoti Bhatia aged 48 years w/o Rakesh Bhatia r/o H.No.2410, Sector 38-c, Chandigarh.

                           ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.    BCL Homes Ltd., Regd. Office Shop No.140, Village Dariya Chandigarh-160002 through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.    BCL Homes Ltd., Village Kishanpura, Adjoining Sector 20, NAC Zirakpur through its Directors Tajinder Kumar Bansal, Rajeev Kumar.

 

3.    BCL Homes Ltd., through its Managing Director, Baldev Chand Bansal, House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Gurjot Singh Sadhrao, Adv. for the complainant
	OPs exparte.

 

      

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.        Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  on 08.08.2011, she booked 200 sq. yards plot in the project of the OP known Chinar city on Patiala Road Zirakpur @ Rs.13,000/- per sq. yards by paying a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- as booking amount through receipt dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure C-1).  She repeatedly approached the OPs with regard to the construction of the said project and allotment thereafter but to no effect. Later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that no formal approvals to carry out the construction at the relevant place have been obtained by the OPs.  In June 2019, she requested the OPs to refund the money where she met Mrs.Krishna Bansal, mother of Sh.Baldev Chand Bansal who stated that she cannot give the refund as claimed by her and rather offered her an investment in other projects undertaken by the OPs.  It has further been averred that the OPs have nether executed an agreement nor delivered the possession of the unit nor refunded the deposited amount despite her requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.        OPs No.1 and 2 served through dasti summons but they failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.02.2021.
3.        Despite due service through publication, OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.10.2020.
4.        We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.        In exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint.  The complainant has also placed on record the photocopy of the receipt No.1495 dated 08.08.2011 issued by the OPs vide which she deposited a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with the OPs through cheque dated 25.07.2011 drawn on State Bank of Patiala.  She has also placed on record a letter as Annexure C-2 wherein she requested the OPs to refund the full amount with interest.  She has specifically deposed in her affidavit that the OPs have nether delivered the possession of the unit nor executed any agreement nor refunded the deposited amount despite her requests. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and the OPs, who are not in a position to deliver the possession of the unit as promised, has no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant.  The OPs are thus, proved to be deficient in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice. 
6. Moreover, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the case and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. Non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go un-rebutted & un-controverted.
7.        For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed qua the OPs. The OPs are directed as under:-

a]       To refund a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a.  from the date of its deposit till its realization.

 [b]     To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment.

[c]       To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

8.  This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(b) from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.
9.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 01/04/2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER