Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/586/2013

Raj Kumar Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

BCL Homes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	586/2013
Date of Institution	:	27.12.2013
Date of Decision	:	27/02/2015

                                                                            

                  

                            

 

Raj Kumar Garg, HUF through Raj Kumar Garg, Opposite Mehta Dharamshala Kanuni Road Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).

 

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.       BCL Homes Ltd., through its Director Regd. Office Shop No.140, Village Darua, Chandigarh -160002.

 

2.       Baldev Chand Bansal, Director BCL Homes Ltd., r/o House No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula-134109.

 

3.       Gopal Bansal s/o Baldev Chand Bansal, BCL Homes Ltd., Krishanpura adjoining Sector 20, NAC Zirakpur, District Mohali (Pb.).

 

4.       Rajeev Kumar, Authorized Representative, BCL Ltd., r/o Flat No.2218, Pepsu Society, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

 

5.       Bombay Goyal, Authorized Representative, BCL Ltd., r/o Flat No.107, Chinar Heights Peer Mochalla, NAC Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Sh.G.L.Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs  No.1 to 3.

                        None for OPs No.4 & 5      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that Opposite Party No.1-Company is going to launch a new project and proposed to build the Studio Apartments at Village Chhat Patiala and Zirakpur District Mohali.  Being persuaded by the Opposite Party, the complainant agreed to purchase proposed Studio Apartment situated at Village Chhat Patiala, District Mohali for Rs.12,50,000/- by paying Rs.2.50 lacs through cheque/RTGs dated 25.08.2011. A copy of the receipt dated 25.08.2011  is Annexure C-1. According to the complainant, the remaining amount was to be paid after the handing over the possession of the Studio Apartment. The Opposite Party assured the complainant that the possession of the Studio Apartment would be delivered to him within one and half year form the date of deposit.  According to the complainant, he visited the Opposite Party a number of times and requested to issue allotment letter and the possession letter but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 13.08.2013, Annexure C-2 but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In their joint written statement, OPs No.1 to 3 took preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer. It was further stated that no agreement was ever signed between the parties and the complainant paid booking amount only. It was further stated that the question of possession can only arise if the whole price of the apartment was paid.   It was further stated that the complainant concocted a false story to seek refund of his amount. Rest of the allegations were denied, being false. According to the answering OPs, there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua them.
3.           In their separate written statement, OPs No.4 and 5 have pleaded that they were authorized distributors of Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 and the concerned deal was matured by OPs No.4 and 5. Most of the averments made in the complaint were admitted. According to the OPs No.4 and 5, the complaint qua them is liable to be dismissed.
4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           The first question to be determined in this case is as to whether the complainant is a consumer qua Opposite Parties as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The answer to this question is in the affirmative because the complainant availed the services of Opposite Parties by paying Rs.2.50 lacs towards the booking of the studio apartment.        
7.           Admittedly, the complainant booked a Studio Apartment by paying a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs vide receipt, Annexure C-1 towards the total sale consideration of Rs.12.50 lacs with Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 through OPs No.4 and 5.  It is also not disputed that neither the possession nor the allotment letter in respect of the Studio Apartment has been issued to the complainant despite passing of more than three years. Besides this, no legal agreement with regard to the Studio Apartment was ever entered ever between the parties.   In our considered view without issuing any allotment letter to the complainant and entering into any agreement in respect of the Studio Apartment, the demand of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 from the complainant to pay the remaining amount of the sale consideration towards the Studio Apartment itself amounts to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.  The complainant was, thus, right in demanding the refund of his deposited amount. Non-refund of the deposited amount of the complainant despite service of the legal notice itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  
8.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

 

1. To refund Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit, till its realization;
2. To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant;
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as cost of litigation;

9.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.(i) and (ii)  shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
10.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27/02/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

cmg