Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/626/2018

Om Parkash Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s BCL Homes Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Khullar

08 May 2020

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/626/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	04/12/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	08/05/2020

 

 

 

 

 

[1]  Om Parkash Mittal S/o Sh.Lakhi Ram Mittal, Residence at 515, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  Santosh Kumari Mittal W/o Sh.Om Parkash Mittal, Residence at 515, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

 

[3]  Satinder Garg S/o Sh.Surinder Kumar, Residence at 3415, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

 

……… Complainants

 

Versus

 

[1]  M/s BCL Homes Limited, through its Directors, Regd. Office SCO 44, Shop No.140, Village Dariya Chandigarh – 160002.

 

2^nd Address:   Village Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur,     District Mohali, Punjab.

 

[2]  Tajinder Kumar Bansal, Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, R/o H.No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula – 134109.

 

[3]  Baldev Chand Bansal, Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, R/o H.No.253, Sector 7, Panchkula – 134109.

 

[4]  Rajeev Kumar, Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, SCO 44, Shop No.140, Village Dariya, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

[5]  Sanjeev Garg, Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, SCO 44, Shop No.140, Village Dariya, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

[6]  Krishna Devi, Director of M/s BCL Homes Limited, SCO 44, Shop No.140, Village Dariya, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

……. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   RATTAN SINGH THAKUR     PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Pankaj Khullar, Advocate.
For OP No.1 to 3	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For OP No.4	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.5 & 6	:	Complaint against OP No.5 & 6 dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2020

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainants, jointly, booked two plots of 200 sq. yards each with the Opposite Parties in their upcoming project, on payment of registration fee of Rs.2,60,000/- each (Receipts Annexure C-1 & C-3), for their own and family use/ occupation on 13.05.2011 and 24.05.2011. At the time of payment, the Opposite Parties issued letters (Annexure C-2 & C-4) stating therein that if Complainants do not want the plot due to any reason, the Opposite Parties would refund the registration amount plus additional penalty of Rs.1500/- per sq. yard i.e. a total of Rs.14500/- per sq. yard. Further, it was also mentioned that if the Complainants want to cancel registration any time before the launch of the project, the Opposite Parties would refund the registration amount plus additional interest of 24% p.a., but the Opposite Parties never launched the project and also never responded back after receiving the amount from the Complainants. Finally, in Oct. 2014 almost after more than 03 years, the Opposite Parties refused to allot the booked plot and allotted 1 BR flat in Chinar Homes at Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur on 15.10.2014 in favour of the Complainants. The amount already paid Rs.5,20,000/- was adjusted against the payment of installment of re-allotted flat. Even after payment of Rs.5,20,000/- there was no development on the project and the Opposite Parties started demanding 3^rd and 4^th installment, which the Complainants paid (Receipts Annexure C-7 & C-8) under the fear of forfeiture of the already paid amount. In all, the Complainants have paid a total Rs.7,55,000/-. The Complainants alleged that the Opposite Parties grabbed their hard earned money on false promises and misrepresentations. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainants have filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 contested the claim of the Complainants and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainants are speculative buyers and claimed the refund on account of prevalent property prices which have come down. The possession of the fully developed project could not be offered on account of force majeure conditions which were beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. The Complainants never approached the Opposite Parties, as claimed in the complaint and as per the terms & conditions of the re-allotment, no claim of refund of the amount was to be made by the Complainant. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 despite service therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

5.      In view of the statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants to the effect that claim against Opposite Parties No.5 & 6 is not pressed, the complaint dismissed as such against Opposite Parties No.5 & 6 vide order dated 05.02.2020.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting Parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The key controversy swirls around the short question, “whether the booking amount of the Complainant needs to be refunded or not”?

 

9.      Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in the positive.

 

10.      It has been contended by the Opposite Parties that the present complaint is barred by limitation. However, we are not impressed with the same, in as much as, perusal of the record clearly shows that there is running cause of action. Despite various requests of the Complainants, the possession was not given to Complainants and pertinently even after filing the present Complaint before this Forum, the Opposite Parties had never returned back the amount received from the Complainants. Hence, the present case is certainly within the limitation.  

 

11.      The Opposite Parties further contended that they could not offer possession to the Complainants and all other consumers due to force majeure circumstances. But, it is a matter of fact that the Opposite Parties have the hard earned money of the Complainants since a long time and they failed to redress the grievance of the Complainants, in as much as the neither the Opposite Parties have refunded the money nor they have offered the possession till date. Hence the Opposite Parties are liable to pay back the amount deposited by the Complainants. In this view of the matter, the act of the Opposite Parties in not refunding the deposited amount tantamounts to deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

12.      Admittedly, an amount of Rs.7,55,000/- have been received by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are not in a position to hand over the possession to the Complainants, till today. We are of the concerted opinion that the amount of the Complainants remained in the possession of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties have utilized this money for furtherance of their own cause, without giving any benefit to the complainants. We see no reason why the interest earned by the Opposite Parties on the amount of Rs.7,55,000/- be not passed over to the Complainants. Why should it become additional profit for the Opposite Parties? In these set of circumstances, we feel that an interest @9% p.a., for the period the amount of Rs.7,55,000/- remained with the Opposite Parties, should be paid to the Complainants forthwith.

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 are, jointly and severally, directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.7,55,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the respective dates of deposit, till its realization;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.50,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainants; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

14.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 4; thereafter, Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the respective dates of deposit, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.  

 

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

Announced

08^th May, 2020                                                          

 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 Sd/-    

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

    

“Dutt”  

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM–I

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.626 of 2018

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 08th day of May, 2020

O R D E R                      In this case arguments were heard on 16.03.2020, but the order could not be dictated due to lockdown/curfew imposed by the Chandigarh Administration due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The Forum re-opened on 04.05.2020 in compliance with the order dated 03.05.2020 issued by the Chandigarh Administration. Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.           After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

 

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER