Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/627/2015

Smt. Harpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/627/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	17/09/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	16/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harpreet Kaur wife of Sh. Surinder Singh, resident of House No.100, Mona Paradise (Shivalik City), Sector 127, Kharar.

….......Complainant

Vs

 

M/s Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited, SCO 183-184, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

Head Office: A-1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

 

…........ Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:    MRS.SURJEET KAUR                PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA        MEMBER

 

Present:      Sh. Surinder Singh, Husband & GPF of Complainant.

            Opposite Party ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Opposite Party by an Agreement/ Allotment Letter dated 26.09.2013 had agreed to allot Service Apartment No.C-414 with an approximate super area of 627 Sq. ft. to the Complainant for a total consideration amount of Rs.18,81,000/-. A copy of the said allotment letter has been annexed with the Complaint as Annexure-A. It has been averred that as per Clause No.11 of the said Allotment Letter (Annexure-B), the possession of the Unit was proposed to be delivered by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, within 18 months from the date of allotment. According to the Complainant, a total amount of Rs.8,18,668/- was paid by her to the Opposite Party (Payment Receipts Annexure-C to E), which amount shall be adjusted in the price of the Unit and the balance amount was to be paid by the Complainant on the date of delivering the possession of the said property. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party failed and neglected to deliver the possession of the said premises to the Complainant, till date. So much so, the construction of the Unit has not been yet started. When repeated requests and reminders to deliver the possession fell on deaf ears, with a view to break the stony silence of the Opposite Party, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 7.7.2015 (Annexure-F), through her Counsel, which too failed to elicit the craved results. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party initially appeared through Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, but subsequently it absented and therefore vide order dated 15.01.2016, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.      Complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

 

5.      We have heard Sh. Surinder Singh, Husband & GPA of Complainant and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.   

 

6.      It is evident from various receipts annexed as Annexures C, D and E dated 22.7.2013, 25.9.2013 and 20.10.2014 respectively, that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,18,668/- towards the part payment of the Unit in question. As per the case of the Complainant the balance amount was to be paid by her on the date of getting the physical possession of the Unit. The main grouse of the Complainant is that till date the Opposite Party could neither deliver the possession of the aforesaid Unit nor refunded the amount deposited to it despite repeated requests. Even the legal notice Annexure-F dated 7.7.2015 has not been replied by the Opposite Party.

 

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.

 

8.      A bare perusal of Clause 11 of Annexure–B (Pg.14) itself makes it clear that the Complainant was told that the possession of the said premises was likely to be delivered by the Company to her within a period of 18 months from the date of the allotment i.e. 26.09.2013. Though it was not a definite commitment by the Opposite Party that the possession of the premises shall be delivered within 18 months of the date of the agreement, still Opposite Party did not dare to present during the proceedings of the case to establish as to what were the Force majeure circumstances on account of which the offer of possession could not be made till date. Accordingly, we feel that the delivery of possession of the flat has been unreasonably delayed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment on this account.  

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed:-

i)   To refund the amount of Rs.8,18,668/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit till realization.

ii)  To make payment of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

iii) To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

10.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, it shall pay the amount at Sr. No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr. No.(i) and (iii) above.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th Feb.,2016                                    

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

“Dutt”