Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/501/2020

Mahipal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma & Mukesh Verma

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	501 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	28.09.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	19.09.2024

 

 

 

 

Mahipal Singh aged 55 years s/o Sh.Bachhan Singh, R/o Flat No.C-114, DDA Flats, Ghazipur, New Delhi-201010.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

1.  M/s Siswan Paradise (P) Ltd., through its Managing Director Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Shop No.3, Sante Majra, Opposite Divine World, Kharar, Earlier Address: SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

2.  M/s Emerging India Real Assets (P) Limited through its Managing Director Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Present Address: Shop No.3, Sante Majra, Opposite Divine World, Kharar, Earlier Address: SCO No.46-47, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. 

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MRS.SURJEET KAUR,         MEMBER

                               

 

Argued by:    Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for Complainant.

OP No.1 ex-parte.

None for OP No.2. 

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading therein that being allured by the brochures and pamphlets of the OPs, the complainant applied for a Cottage Farmhouse measuring 605 sq. yards in the project of the OPs known as “Siswan Paradise” at Village Mirzapur by paying entire payment Rs.3,50,000/- as per Plan B against receipt dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure C-2) for his personal use and occupation of his family members. It has been averred that the OPs have not taken any permission from the GMADA nor they have got CLU for selling the plots and as such they have played a fraud with the public. Subsequently, the complainant sought the refund of the deposited amount along with interest but the same has not been refunded despite the requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

2]       Since notice sent to OP No.1 was received back with the remarks ‘refused’ and none put in appearance before this Commission on its behalf, OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.07.2022.

3]       OP No.2 filed its written version stating therein that the complainant never paid any payment to it and neither he is competent to file the present complaint qua it. It has further been stated that the payment qua the booked plot has been made by the complainant to OP No.1 and as such the complainant has no privity of contract with it. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4]           Complainant chose not to file replication.

5]           Complainant led evidence in support of his contention. However, OP No.2 did not file evidence by way of affidavit despite of the opportunity granted.

6]           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents on record.

7]           From the documentary evidence on record especially the certificate (Annexure C-1) and receipt (Annexure C-2), it is observed that the complainant booked a Cottage Farm House measuring 605 sq. yards in the draw of lots held on 14.06.2012 vide application No.71310 and paid Rs.3,50,000/- in cash.  Vide Annexure C-2, OP No.1 has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant qua his full and final payment for the Cottage Farm House. The complainant has deposed in the affidavit that the plot(s) were sold/marketed by the OPs without obtaining any license(s)/approval(s) from the competent authorities/GMADA and they have not taken the permission from the concerned authorities for selling the plots. The OPs have neither refunded the deposited amount to the complainant nor delivered the possession of the unit in question, which itself amounts to deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice.  

8]           The Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in First Appeals bearing No.557 and 683 of 2003 titled as “Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.” decided on 20.04.2007 has observed as under:-

“It would be unfair trade practice, if the builder, without any planning and without obtaining any effective permission to construct building/ apartments, invites offers and collects money from the buyers. If the construction of the building/apartment is delayed, because of such delay, and the possession of the apartment is not delivered within the stipulated time, the builder would be liable to bear the escalation cost and not the buyer/consumer”.

 

9]           The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3533-3534 of 2017 – Fortune Infrastruture vs. Trevor’D Lima, decided on 12.3.2018 has observed that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation.

10]          It may be stated here that the OP No.1 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.1 draws an adverse inference that they have nothing to contradict in defence against the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted & un-controverted.

11]          Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period and OP No.1 who is not in a position to develop the project has no right to retain the hard earned money of the complainant. OP No.1 is, thus, proved deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.

12]          For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amount i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of its deposit i.e. 22.05.2012 till the date of its actual realization. The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.         

             The above said order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13]          The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

             The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.09.2024                                                  

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

as