STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 10.10.2017
Date of Final Hearing: 17.09.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 02.12.2024
Consumer Complaint No.625 of 2017
Smt. Sneh Jain W/o Sh. Shiv Kumar, R/o H. No. 416-P, Sector-40, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. ....Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Pal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pal Tower, IIIrd Floor, MG Road, Sikanderpur, Opposite Metro Pillar NO. 53, Gurgaon-002 through its Directors Sh. Manav Chandra.
2. Sh. Manav Chandra, Director of M/s Pal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. R/o H.No. 11, Akash Neem Marg, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon.
3. Sh. Rajesh Yadav S/o Sh. Harpal Yadav, Bhondsi Jail, Sohna Road, through its Jailor.
...Opposite Parties
CORAM: Sh. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member.
Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
Argued by:- Mr. Manjeet Singh proxy counsel for Mr. Jasdev Singh, counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Brief facts are that: opposite parties launched two projects namely ‘Pal Garden and Pal Heights at Sector -89 and 78, Faridabad’. In October-2006; OPs invited applications from general public. Son of complainant booked two flats for himself and for his parents in OPs’ project to be constructed in Sector-89 and 78, Faridabad. In October-2006, Vishal Jain paid Rs.2,55,000/- towards booking of flat in Sector-78, Faridabad and paid Rs.2,75,000/- towards booking of flat in Sector-89, Faridabad. A relation (Bua) of complainant’s son namely Asha Jain also booked one flat in Sector-89, Faridabad in project Pal Garden for herself and her family members and paid Rs.2,75,000/- in cash. After two years of booking; son of complainant and her husband on visiting at project sites were shocked to see zero development. Thereafter, they along with Asha Jain demanded refund of deposited money from OPs, who refused and offered to merge payments of all three booked flats, into one. Husband and son of complainant along with Asha Jain agreed to merge said payments into one flat at Sector-89. Thereupon, Vishal Jain and Asha Jain jointly become applicants/owners. Asha Jain showed her willingness to withdraw her name as an allottee. Husband and son of complainant, being relative of Asha Jain returned her booking amount. Thereafter, Vishal Jain requested OPs through written communication to make changes in applicant/co-applicant of Flat No. E-1102 and replace Sh. Shiv Kumar Jain to be co-applicant/co-owner in place of Asha Jain. As per plea; till date payment of Rs.8,05,000/- has been made against booking of said flat (E-1102, Project Pal Garden) having covered area of 1250 sq. ft. @ Rs.1600/- per sq. ft.
2. OPs allotted apartment E-1102 to son of complainant. It was assured by OPs that possession will be delivered within 30 months from date of booking i.e. from year-2006 with grace period of six months. Assurances of OPs proved bogus as till 2010 only foundation of project was completed. In year 2008; OPs sent agreement to complainant to sign it. In terms and conditions thereof; OPs bypassed their earlier commitments and set up new limitation period of delivery of possession of allotted flat latest by September-2011. It is pleaded in April-2010; when complainant’s son visited at project site, he saw it in abandoned condition. On 27.04.2011, OPs issued demand letter to complainant demanding payment of outstanding amount on completion of second floor’s slab of project, but, when son of complainant visited at project site in May-2011; he was astonished to see abandoned condition at project site and no speedy progress in construction. In October-2011, complainant’s son passed away. Despite this loss to complainant, OPs issued another letter dated 06.06.2012 and threatened to cancel allotment of flat for non-payment of outstanding amount. (Note: As per letter dated 06.06.2012 OPs have cancelled the allotment.) Complainant sent legal notice dated 30.07.2012 to OPs requesting, not to cancel the allotment till adjudication of suit for declaration pending before Civil Judge, Gurgaon that she (complainant) be declared as successor of her deceased son. OPs did not pay any heed to request of complainant and nor given reply to the notice. Vide judgment dated 12.03.2018, suit for declaration was decreed to the effect that complainant being mother of deceased-Vishal Jain is entitled to succeed to his properties as Class-I heir. Thereafter, complainant contacted OPs several times, but OPs failed to revoke cancellation. It is pleaded that 11 years have passed (period reckoned on the date of filing of complaint) and there is no sign of completion of project in near future. It is alleged that even after expiry of 6 years of expiry of her son; complainant is still waiting to get the possession. OPs have retained Rs.8,05,000/-. Complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on behalf of OPs and filed complaint thereby seeking refund of Rs.8,05,000/- with interest @18% p.a.; also sought direction to award her Rs.5,00,000/- compensation for mental harassment and torture suffered by her; award her Rs.1,50,000/- for litigation expenses. Direction has also been sought against OPs to restore possession of flat. Text of complaint is supported by complainant’s affidavit.
3. OPs No. 1 & 2 have not appeared in proceedings of this complaint as notice issued upon them had been received back with report of “refusal” and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2018. OP No. 3 who was earlier represented by Sh. Rohit Goswami, Advocate was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2019.
4. Complainant led her ex-parte evidence and tendered her duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-A/1 and relied upon documents Ex.C-1/1 to Ex.C-1/8 and closed her evidence through statement of her counsel dated 22.12.2022.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and with his able assistance have also perused the material brought on record of this complaint.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has urged that complainant be allowed refund of amount paid by her with interest as the project in which subject flat has been allotted to her, is nowhere near completion. It is also urged that complainant be also granted reasonable amount towards compensation on account of mental harassment and agony suffered by her all through. Further, it is urged that the entire case of complainant for seeking refund is substantiated by her own affirmative statement and supporting documents.
7. On analyzing all relevant facets of this case, this Commission is of view that this complaint must succeed. Evidence brought on record in the shape of duly sworn affidavit EX.CW-A/1 of complainant and documents Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/8 remain un-rebutted and un-impeached as there has been no challenge to the same on the part of OPs. It is proved on record that original allottee was Vishal Jain (son of complainant) and complainant has/had inherited to his estate on the force of Civil Court decree dated 12.08.2013 being Class-I heir because of death of Vishal Jain. Admittedly, qua subject flat (E-1102); OPs have received Rs.8,05,000/- from complainant. Document Ex.CW-1/2 substantiates this fact, which is the receipt issued by OPs. OPs have not delivered possession of subject flat within agreed time and ultimately cancelled the subject flat through force of its letter dated 06.06.2012 (Ex.CW-1/5). OPs cannot be allowed to enrich itself at the cost of complainant. It was statutory obligation of OPs to itself refund the amount of Rs.8,05,000/- received from complainant in the wake of fact that proposed project where subject flat is situated, was nowhere near completion. By ignoring it obligation and instead by cancelling the subject flat quoting reason of default of payment from complainant, OPs have demonstrated unfair trade practice on its part. OPs conduct of not refunding the amount paid by complainant to them, timely at its own behest and instead making complainant to file this complaint for relief of refund of amount paid has proved deficiency in services on its part towards complainant. Agony of complainant stood compounded in manifold terms by constant inept attitude of OPs which has led her to suffer harassment and mental agony thereby justifying grant of reasonable compensation to her.
8. This being so; this compliant merits acceptance. It is accordingly allowed ex-parte. OPs are directed jointly and severally to refund amount of Rs.8,05,000/- with 7% interest p.a. from date of filing of complaint till realization to complainant. Amount of Rs.50,000/- is further awarded to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by her along with litigation cost, which will not carry any interest. This direction must be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from receipt of this order. In case, there is any default on the part of OPs in not complying with above directions, then amount of Rs.8,05,000/- would carry 9% interest p.a. for defaulting period.
9. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
10. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
11. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 02nd December, 2024.
S.C. Kaushik Naresh Katyal
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
