Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/285/2015

ICICI Home Finance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pradeep Singh Bakshi - Opp.Party(s)

Er. Sandeep Suri

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No.	:	285 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	29.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.11.2015

 

ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, through Manager, SCO 129-130, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

V e r s u s

1. Pradeep Singh Bakshi s/o Lt. Col. Tejinder Singh Bakshi (Retd.), resident of House No.12, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh, through his G.P.A. Lt. Col. Tejinder Singh Bakshi (Retd.).

Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. SUKHM Infrastructures Private Limited (Yellow Stone Gardens) through Manager/Proprietor, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160017.

              ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:           JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the applicant/             appellant.       

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal has been filed against an order dated 20.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum only). Vide that order, the appellant alongwith respondent No.2 (Opposite Party No.1), were jointly held liable to refund  an amount of Rs.5 lacs, to respondent No.1/complainant, with interest @9% P.A., from the respective dates, when the amount was deposited, with respondent No.2. Both of them were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges. Payment was to be made within 30 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order under challenge, failing which it was ordered that the amount awarded shall carry penal interest @12% P.A., from the date of passing that order, till actual amount was paid, besides payment of litigation charges.

2.       Alongwith the aforesaid appeal, the appellant, has filed an application for condonation of delay of 26 days (as per office 24 days) in filing the same, on the grounds mentioned therein.
3.       The explanation given by Counsel for the appellant, in the appeal, at the time of arguments, as also in the application aforesaid, appears to be justified. The delay stands condoned.
4.       The application is disposed of, accordingly.
5.       The appeal is ordered to be heard.
6.       As per facts on record, respondent No.1/ complainant booked one residential unit, measuring 1850 square feet, in the project, launched by respondent No.2, named as “Yellow Stone Garden”. It was specific averment of respondent No.1 that the said project was promoted with declared assistance of the appellant. Respondent No.1 filed an application Annexure C-1 and on deposit of Rs.5 lacs, he was allotted a flat on 5^th floor, Tower A in the said project, on 28.08.2011. It was further case of respondent No.1 that when no activity was found at the site, after about one and a half years, he contacted a representative of respondent No.2. It was told to him that construction will start in the month of March/April 2013. Vide letter dated 20.03.2014, respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2, to intimate him regarding progress of construction at the project. Copy of the said letter was also handed over to one Onkarjot Singh, Area Manager of the appellant. It is averred in the complaint that when no response was received, respondent No.1 wrote a letter dated 29.09.2014, requesting respondent No.2, to refund the amount, paid by him, with interest. Copy of that letter was also sent to the appellant. In the said letter, it was specifically said that the appellant has accepted brokerage charges, at the time, when the unit, in question, was allotted to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 failed to get any positive response. He has placed on record, copy of an email dated 30.09.2014, at page 23 of the Forum file, written by Onkarjot Singh, Area Manager of the appellant to respondent No.2. The relevant portion reads thus:-

“Dear Sir,

As discussed, PFA scan letter from client for the refund against his booking done in Yellow Stone, Mohali. I would request, pls take it seriously and do not ignore the mail. Client is feeling cheated and agitated.

Thanks

Regds

Onkarjot”

7.       Respondent No.1 failed to get reply from both, the appellant and respondent No.2. However, he has placed on record, copy of an email dated 03.11.2014 Annexure C-6, written by respondent No.2 to Onkarjot Singh, referred to above. Contents of the said email reads thus:-

“This with reference to your mail below regarding the refund amount of mr.bakshi. We would forward this to my accounts dept. for their perusal. we would refund the amount as per company policy and revert you soon to confirm the same.”

8.       When no attempt was made by the appellant and respondent No.2, to redress grievance of respondent No.1, he filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act), seeking refund, by alleging that the Opposite Parties were deficient in providing service and further that they had indulged into unfair trade practice, in getting huge amount of Rs.5 lacs, from him and not returning the same. What to talk of starting construction at the site, they have not bothered to reply to the request made by him.
9.       Despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte by the Forum, vide order dated 29.06.2015.
10.       The appellant in its written reply, took up a stand that it has no relation with respondent No.2. Only limited role played by the appellant was to provide information to respondent No.1/complainant to purchase the property in a project, launched by respondent No.2. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.  
11.       The appellant and respondent No.1, led evidence, in support of their case.
12.       After hearing Lt. Col. T.S. Bakshi (Retd.), General Power of Attorney Holder of respondent No.1 and Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum rejected the above said plea of the appellant. The appellant and also respondent No.2 were held guilty of deficiency in providing service and they were ordered to refund the amount paid by respondent No.1, alongwith compensation and litigation charges, as referred to, in earlier part of this order.
13.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
14.       We have heard Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
15.       At the time of arguments, Counsel for the appellant reiterated the facts, referred to in earlier part of this order. He argued that only limited role was played by the appellant, to provide information to respondent No.1/complainant to purchase the property in a project, launched by respondent No.2, as such, the Forum was wrong, in holding the appellant jointly liable to pay the amount, referred to above, alongwith respondent No.2.   
16.       Perusal of record of the case, reveals that it was rightly noted by the Forum that active role was played by the appellant, in getting property sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. It was virtually admitted, at the time of arguments that the appellant had received brokerage charges, when the unit, in question, was allotted to respondent No.1. Perusal of communication placed on record, makes it very clear that the appellant was working in close association with respondent No.2, to promote the project, in question. When no progress was seen at the site, respondent No.1 wrote a letter dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure C-3), to respondent No.2, copy of which was also sent to the appellant. Request was made to intimate him regarding progress of construction at the project.  On 29.09.2014 respondent No.1 again wrote a letter (Annexure C-4) seeking refund of amount, deposited by him. Copy of that letter was also handed over to an Officer of the appellant. In the said letter, it was specifically stated that the appellant had received brokerage charges, when the unit, in question, was allotted to respondent No.1. The appellant did not bother to respond to both the letters. It is also on record that an Officer of the appellant sent an email dated 13.10.2014 to respondent No.2, asking it to refund the amount deposited by respondent No.1. To that email, vide email dated 03.11.2014, respondent No.2 intimated the appellant that the claim raised by respondent No.1 would be referred to its Accounts Department, for perusal and the amount will be refunded, as per Company Policy. However, nothing was done. The very fact that the deal to purchase the property, in question, was matured through the appellant, as it had received promoter/brokerage charges, makes it clear that the appellant was also a party to the entire transaction. When letters were received from respondent No.1, to provide information regarding progress of construction, at the site and to refund the amount, nothing was done. Those letters were not replied at all, by the appellant. Sequence of the events, as has been noticed by the Forum, makes it very clear that role of the appellant was not limited, as claimed by it before the Forum, as also this Commission. Otherwise also, the appellant has been held jointly liable with respondent No.2, to make the payment, in question, to respondent No.1. After making payment, legal remedy is available with the appellant, to claim that amount from respondent No.2, if permissible. Thus, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the Forum is perfectly justified.
17.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
18.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
19.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
20.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

02.11.2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH  (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rg