Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/625/2018

Ratnish Garg - 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/625/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	04/12/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	08/05/2020

 

 

 

 

 

1]   Ratnish Garg S/o Sh. Rajinder Pal Garg, Residence at B202, Exotic Grandeur, Hadbast No.48, Near Sun Park Resort, Zirakpur.

 

2]   Munish Garg S/o Sh. Rajinder Pal Garg, Residence at B202, Exotic Grandeur, Hadbast No.48, Near Sun Park Resort, Zirakpur – Panchkula Kalka Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab – 140603.

 

……… 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	:	Complaint against OP No.5 dismissed Vide order dated 05.02.2020.
For OP No.6	:	Complaint against OP No.6 dismissed Vide order dated 16.03.2020.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainants, jointly, booked two 3 Bedrooms Flats with the Opposite Parties in their upcoming project in the name & style of Chinar Homes at Kishanpura, NAC Zirakpur, for their own and family use/ occupation on 11.03.2013. In all, the Complainants have paid a total Rs.5,25,000/- with the Opposite Parties (Receipts Annexure C-1, C-3, C-5 & C-6). At the time of payment, the Opposite Parties issued letters (Annexure C-2 & C-4) stating therein that the Complainants were eligible for the 12 monthly draw, but they never made such draw ever. Further, it was also mentioned that if the Complainants were not successful in any of the monthly draws, then the Complainants were eligible for the refund of their registration amount after one year with interest @15%, but the Opposite Parties failed to fulfil their promises despite repeated requests and personal entreaties. 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. 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 Party No.5 is not pressed, the complaint dismissed as such against Opposite Party No.5 vide order dated 05.02.2020.

 

6.      Opposite Party No.6 filed her reply, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that there has been no specific allegation in the complaint against her and she had resigned from the Board of Directors on 18.02.2014. It has been maintained that the answering Opposite Party never received any payment from the Complainant and she has been unnecessarily dragged in the present litigation. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on her part, Opposite Party No.6 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

7.      Subsequently, per endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainants, on the first page of the Consumer Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.6 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 16.03.2020.

 

8.      Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12.      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.

 

13.      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. The letters issued by the Opposite Parties have clear mention of 12 monthly draws starting from 13th Jan. 2013. As per the Opposite Parties 12 monthly draws supposed to be held, but not even a single draw has been made by the Opposite Parties. More so, despite various requests of the Complainants and pertinently 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.   

 

14.      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 deposit 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.

 

15.      Admittedly, an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- 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.5,25,000/- 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.5,25,000/- remained with the Opposite Parties, should be paid to the Complainants forthwith.

 

16.      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.5,25,000/- 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;

 

17.      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/-.  

 

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

 

•  

08^th May, 2020                                                      

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

“Dutt”  

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM–I

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.625 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