Haryana

Panchkula

CC/147/2021

M/S AARGE DRUGS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GLM INFRATECH PVT.LTD(ERSTWHILE M/S BHOOMI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LTD).. - Opp.Party(s)

SUMIT NARANG.

08 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	147 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	23.02.2021
Date of Decision	:	08.11.2021

 

M/s Aarge Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office:- Plot No.5, Sector-1, Parwanoo, District Solan(H.P.)-173220 through it’s Director/Authorised Signatory Sh. R.K.Goyal.

                                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s GLM Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Erstwhile M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company Ltd.), Corporate Office:- Gold City, Plot No.11, Sector-19-D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705, through it’s Managing Director.

2^nd Address:-Site Office-Sector-2, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

3^rd Address:- Regd. Office-Amazon The Defence County, Sector-30, Panchkula, Haryana-134112.

4^th Address:- Branch Office- House No.1411, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.    

2.      The Managing Director, M/s GLM Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company), Corporate Office:- Gold City, Plot No.11, Sector-19-D, Navi Mumbai-400705, through it’s Managing Director.

2^nd Address:-Site Office-Sector-2, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

3^rd Address:- Regd. Office, Amazon The Defence County, Sector-30, Panchkula, Haryana-134112.

4^th Address:-Branch Office-House No.1411, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

3.      Surinder Singh Deswal, Managing Director, M/s GLM Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile M/s Bhoomi Infrastructure Company), Corporate Office:- Gold City, Plot No.11, Sector-19-D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705, through it’s Managing Director.

2^nd Address:- Site Office-Sector-2, Shri Mata Mansa Devi Urban Complex, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

3^rd Address:-Regd. Office-Amazon The Defence County, Sector-30, Panchkula, Harayan-134112.

4^th Address:- Branch Office-House No.1411, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:                Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.    

                           OPs already ex parte vide order dated 02.04.2021.

ORDER

(Sh. Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is a private limited company and engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs, formulations & chemicals. The present complaint is being filed through Sh. R.K.Goel who is the authorized signatory/representative of the complainant Co. The Ops floated a proposed Residential Housing Project  in Sector-2, Shri Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula where it propagate to provide residential flats and assured high quality of living and possession of the flats would be delivered within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of agreement with an extension of additional 12 months. It was further asserted that builder buyer agreement would be got executed by May 2011 i.e. when the construction would commence and the project of the flats would be offered by mid of 2015 tentatively. Lured by such assurances and promises by OP’s, the complainant i.e. M/s Aarge Drugs Pvt. Ltd. through its Director/Authorised Signatory Sh. R.K.Goyal applied for a flat in the said proposed Residential Housing Project of the Ops. The Ops offered an initial special discount of 7.5% on BSP to the complainant for early booking and an additional special discount of 12% of BSP if payment is made by the complainant to make a payment of Rs. 20,00,000/-  in lump-sum  in order to avail the said discounts. The complainant agreed and made a full and final payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- vide cheque no.008701 Dated 11.04.2010 drawn upon ICICI Bank Ltd .against receipt no.1004 dated 25.05.2010 issued by the Ops. The Ops stated that the allotment of the flat would be made within a week.  When the Ops did not issued any allotment letter to the complainant, he went to the office of the Ops and enquired about the reason for delay.  The Ops assured that the complainant would receive the allotment letter by post within two weeks. Upon repeated enquiries, Ops told to the complainant that the allotment letter would be issued shortly before execution of the builder buyer agreement. It was further committed that the possession of flat would be handed over to the complainant after the completion of internal development works, external development and upon obtaining certificate for occupation from the competent authority. The Ops neither issued any allotment letter to the complainant nor executed the builder buyer’s agreement. The complainant, thereafter, periodically visited the office of the Ops in Panchkula to enquire about the status of allotment letter and execution of builder buyer agreement but to no avail and the construction work had not even commenced at the project site. The complainant many times personally visited the office of the OP for enquiring as to when the builder buyer agreement would be executed, development works would commence and possession of flat would be delivered but Ops kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and did not gave any satisfactory answer to the complainant. It is further stated that when the complainant enquired personally, came to know from independent source that the abovesaid project of the Ops was not even approved by any competent authority and had not applied for any permissions by the competent authority at the time when the complainant had booked the said flat.  When the possession of the flat was not offered within committed period i.e. by May 2015, the complainant had served upon a legal notice to the Ops on 17.04.2017 and 22.09.2018 but the Ops did not bother to reply the said legal notices. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Ops to refund the principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- deposited by it but the Ops flatly refused to refund the said amount. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notices were issued to the Ops No.1 to 3 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH087156264IN, CH087156255IN and CH087156233IN dated 03.03.2021 respectively) which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to Ops No.1 to 3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 3, They were proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 02.04.2021.

3.               To prove his case, the ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.               We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and  gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.               Evidently, a payment of sum of Rs.20 lacs vide cheque no.008701 dated 11.04.2010, as per receipt no.1004 dated 25.05.2010 issued by the OP(Annexure C-2), was made by the complainant to the OP. The complainant was assured by the OP No.3, who is the Managing Director of the OP No.-1 i.e. Company that allotment letter of the flat would be made within a week from the receipt of the said payment. It was further assured that the flat buyer agreement would be got executed by May 2011. As per the averments made in the complaint, the OPs were required to deliver the possession of the flat by May 2015. The grievances of the complainant are that neither any letter allotting any flat to the complainant, in lieu of the deposited sum of Rs.20 lacs, was issued by the OPs nor the flat buyer agreement, after its execution, was provided by the OPs to the complainant.  In the present complaint, it has been prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 20 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% to the complainant and further, a compensation of Rs.5 lacs and Rs. 1 lacs on account of physical harassment, mental agony and litigations charges be paid to the complainant.

6.               The complainant has alleged following deficiencies on the part of the OPs:-

1.      That the OPs have floated the residential scheme without obtaining the required statutory permissions from the competent authority.

2.      That the OPs have failed to commence the construction work at the  site within the assured period.  

3.      That the OPs have failed to offer the possession of the flat by May 2015.

 

7.               The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that he has nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.               On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-2 to C-5.

9.               The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the following case laws:- 

1. Springdale Core Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. in CC.No.349 of 2017 decided on 16.12.2019.

2. Aerostar Helmets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adani M2K Project L1p & Ors in CC No.930 of 2018 delivered on 18.11.2020(NC).     

 

10.             In view of the fact that the OPs have neither responded to the legal notices(Annexure C-3 to C-5)nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

11.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. That the Ops shall refund an amount of Rs.20 Lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/-/-as cost of litigation charges.

12.             The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 08.11.2021

 

         Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

                  Member                        Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                             President