STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Complaint No.72 of 2018
Date of Institution: 19.03.2018
Date of final hearing: 19.04.2023
Date of pronouncement: 25.04.2023
Atimukt Jain S/o Sh. Rajender Jain, R/o # 4/177, Ward No. 23, Inderlok Kathmandi, Sonepat, Haryana.
…..Complainant
Versus
1. Parsvnath Developers Limited, having its registered office at 6th floor, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi through its Chairman/ Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. Parsvnath Developers Limited at Parsvnath City Center Site, Railway Station Road, Ashok Nagar, Sonepat, Haryana-131001, through its Chairman/ Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite Parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Present:- Mr. Nikhil Sharma, proxy counsel for Mr. Aseem Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Nikhi Sehrawat, proxy counsel for Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
As per complainant’s case, opposite party is a big construction house and it floated new project in the name of ‘Parsvnath City’ at Sonepat (Haryana). Vide publicity of project was given by getting advertisements published in the leading newspapers. Opposite parties (OPs) also distributed leaflets, erected King Size hoardings on National Highways near actual site to attract customers. Opposite party was offering plots of various sizes. Complainant, upon inquiry from the office of OP came to know that Mrs. Meenkashi Sharma W/o Sh. Satya Narain Sharma, H. No. 1214, Sec-14, Sonepat, who booked plot with OP was keen to sell her plot B-3114, Parsvnath City at Sonepat measuring 419.73 sq. yards @ Rs.6159.43 amounting to Rs.25,85,300/-. Sale price did not include preferential location charges, cost of electric service connection, sewer and water connection, external development charges, infrastructure development charges, statutory charges, service tax, VAT, Stamp Duty, membership fee, usage charges etc. It transpired that Mrs. Meenkashi Sharma had deposited total sum of Rs.34,77,455/- (details given in Para No. 4 of the complaint). It is pleaded that initial advance booking against said plot was given by Sh. Mohan Lal C/o Mohan Boot House, Sohana Road, Sonepat, Haryana amounting to Rs.12,87,500/-. Sh. Mohan Lal transferred/sold this plot in the name of Ajay Bansal, who, transferred his share in the name of Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma. OP also acknowledged the endorsement of receipt against P & F project vide receipt dated 28.01.2009 and confirmed that name of Meenakshi Sharma stands substituted in place of Sh. Ajay Bansal. (Ex.C-1) is Plot Buyers Agreement executed between Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma and OPs and Ex.C-2 is the endorsement of receipts in the name of Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma.
2. After negotiation and all settlements, complainant bought plot from Mrs. Meenkashi Sharma. OP was informed about transfer of plot between Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma and complainant and it was further acknowledged and confirmed by OP that right to purchase Plot No. B-3114, measuring 419.73 sq. mtr., at Parsvnath City, Sonepat has been transferred in the name of complainant, vide letter dated 02.04.2012. Amount paid by Mrs. Meenkashi Sharma to OPs was paid by complainant to Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma after deducting administrative charges. Change in the rights of plot in the name of complainant and substitution of name of Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma is Ex.C-3. Total amount received by OPs vide separate receipts are Ex.C-4 Colly (10 in numbers). It is pleaded that endorsement was also acknowledged by OPs on Plot Buyers Agreement whereby rights and liabilities under the agreement were transferred in the name of complainant, instead Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma. In this way, it is pleaded that amount deposited in the name of complainant with OPs is Rs.33,64,655/- plus administrative charges Rs.1,12,800/-, total amounting to Rs.34,77,455 (as detailed in para 4 of complaint).
3. It is pleaded that OPs was under contractual obligation to issue final call notice to buyer and transfer plot in name of complainant, within reasonable time after plot has been finally demarcated but there was inordinate delay in the time completion schedule. Complainant repeatedly requested OPs to handover the plot but did not even receive even a single reply. OPs chose to keep quite on the issue on the issue of project being delayed inordinately. Letter written to OPs are Ex.C-5 colly. Complainant also personally visited the office of OP. It is pleaded that OPs failed to handover possession of plot to complainant and failed to even start the project as they did not have necessary approvals. In this manner complainant has alleged harassment to him by OPs; also alleged that he suffered mental agony/pain because of acts of OPs who indulged in unfair trade practice from very beginning. By alleging deficiency in service of OPs and by asserting the cause of action; complainant filed this complaint thereby seeking refund of Rs.34,77,455/- with 15% compound interest p.a. from the date of receipt of payment till filing of complaint and future interest @15% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its actual payment. He has also claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment caused to him and Rs.5,00,000/- for damages on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He has also claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards unwarranted and uncalled litigation.
4. Notice was issued to OPs and Sh. Satpal Dhamija has put in his appearance. Despite availing number of opportunities to file written version, no written version has been filed by Opposite parties. Ops were also burdened with cost of Rs.4000/-. Neither cost amount has been paid nor written version was filed and, in that eventuality, defence of the opposite parties was struck off vide order dated 13.05.2019. Complainant was directed to file evidence and he filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A on 16.09.2019 and placed reliance upon documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. He closed his evidence on 16.09.2019.
5. It is apparent from order dated 16.09.2019 that since defence of OPs was struck down vide order dated 13.05.2019, therefore, they are not required to record their evidence. Thereafter, complaint was adjourned for arguments. Arguments was heard on 19.04.2023.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has urged that genesis of case put forward by complainant has not been controverted as there is no defence, set up by OPs as they were legally debarred to file their defence. It is urged that appropriate relief as prayed in the complaint be granted to the complainant on the given facts which is substantiated by evidence of complainant and documentary evidence Ex.C-1 to C-5. Learned counsel for the OPs could not refuted this contention of learned counsel for the complainant.
7. On analyzing the case of the complainant; this Commission is of firm view that this complaint deserves acceptance. Averments made in the complaint, which are supported by duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and unimpeached as defence of the OPs have been struck off vide this Commission’s order dated 13.05.2019. Thus, there has been no challenge to the complainant’s case, evidence led by him (oral as well as documentary) at legal pedestal. It would legally imply that OPs have admitted the case of complainant, in entirety. OPs have confirmed on 02.04.2012, regarding change of rights to purchase the plot in question, from Meenakshi Sharma to complainant herein (Atimukt Jain). Letter Ex.C-3 is explicit in itself. Its text, not only recites that: Rs.33,64,655/- has been paid concerning plot in question, by Mrs. Meenkashi Sharma to OP, but it also recites that she has made present complainant (Atimukt Jain) as her nominee and Rs.33,64,655/- paid by her, may please be considered as paid by her nominee. Bank draft of Rs.75,300/- towards administrative charges was also enclosed. Request was made by complainant herein to change the right to purchase plot in question was confirmed by OPs on 02.04.2012. Thus, for all intends and purposes, complainant has stepped into the shoes of erstwhile owner Meenakshi Sharma, qua plot in question. He (complainant) has obviously attired a character of being a consumer of OPs on basis of above facts.
8. OPs cannot enrich itself at the cost of complainant by retaining the amount paid to it. Since complainant has bought the plot from erstwhile owner Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma and paid her the amount which she had deposited with OPs in relation to plot B-3114, therefore, he (complainant) is entitled to relief. As per unrebutted case set up by him; Rs.33,64,655/- has been paid by him in relation to above plot. Despite having received an amount of Rs.33,64,655/- the act and conduct of OPs clearly demonstrated their attitude of willful neglect and creation of sordid conditions for complainant to face. OPs are directed to release this amount of Rs.33,64,655/- to complainant, who is also entitled to claim interest on the said amount. This being so, it is ordered that amount of Rs.33,64,655/- will also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its actual realization. In addition; Rs.25,000/- be paid to complainant towards deficiency in services of OPs, towards him which has led him to face harassment and encounter mental agony. Complainant is also entitled cost of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. This complaint stands disposed of, being allowed, in above terms.
9. Two months’ time is given to OPs to comply with the directions contained in this order, else, complainant would be at liberty to adopt appropriate legal recourse, for execution of this order and in that eventuality, principal amount of Rs. 33,64,655/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its actual realization.
10. Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
11. 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.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 25th April, 2023
Naresh Katyal Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
