DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.875 of 2017
Date of institution: 17.10.2017 Date of decision : 03.12.2021
Nand Kishore son of Attar Chand permanent resident of House No.582, Sector 10, Gurugram (Haryana) presently resident of House No.2640, 1st Floor, Phase-7, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
…….Complainant
Versus
1. The Skyrock City Welfare Society Mohali (registered No.PB2831/2010) Office at Banur Road, Backside C.G.C. College, Landran, Sector 111-112, Mohali acting through its President Shri Navjeet Singh.
2nd Address: SCO No.26, First Floor, Phase-2, Mohali (registered No.PB2831/2010)
3rd Address: SCO 672, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. Shri Navjeet Singh being the President of the Skyrock City Welfare Society Mohali (registered No.PB2831/2010) Office at Banur Road, Backside C.G.C. College, Landran, Sector 111-112, Mohali.
3. PUDA/GMADA through its Estate Officer, Sector 62, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Opposite Parties
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Shri Lalit Sood, counsel for the complainant.
Shri G.S. Arshi, counsel for OP No.3.
None for OP No.1 and 2.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that OP No.1 society made advertisements that it will get the land on subsidized rates under Cooperative House Building Society and will allot the plots to its members on a subsidized rates. The CC submitted application to OP No.1 for becoming its member and gave his requirement for a plot of 150 sq. yards. The CC paid Rs.10,000/- to OP No.1 as membership fee and OP No.1 agreed to deliver plot of 150 sq. yards to the CC @ Rs.11,000/- per sq. yard vide membership receipt dated 01.07.2011. In total, the CC had paid Rs.17,35,750/- to OP No.1, vide various receipts. OP No.1 represented to the CC, that its project is approved by GMADA. The OPs issued provisional allotment letter of Plot N.F-128 measuring 150 sq. yards in Sector 111-112, SAS Nagar Mohali. Thereafter, the OPs also demanded various amounts from the CC towards consideration of the plot and EDC charges. The CC came to know through newspapers that the OP No.1 and 2 have duped lot of people and that OP No.1 was a fake society. It is averred that all the offices of OP No.1 and 2 were closed and OP No.2 has been arrested by the police. The CC visited the site and found that there was nothing visible on the spot.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought the refund of Rs.17,35,750/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The CC further demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3,00,000/- for breach of contract and misrepresentation and cheating. The CC has also demanded Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and also supported by an affidavit.
2. OP No.1 and 2 in reply have raised number of preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and that the CC had failed to comply with the terms and conditions and has defaulted the payments. The OPs have provided terms and conditions to its members alongwith schedule for making payments by way of installments and the amounts received have been utilized in purchasing the land and for development works. The CC is bound by the memorandum of the society. OP No.1 and 2 are ready to handover the possession of the plot if the CC is ready to make the remaining balance consideration amount. On merits, OP No.1 and 2 have denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.3 in reply also has raised number of preliminary objections that there exist no relationship of consumer and service provider between the CC and OP No.3.The complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of party and that the complaint is without cause of action against OP No.3. On merits, OP No.3 has denied the averments of the complaint and averred that OP No.3 had issued a public notice in The Tribune making general public aware of the conduct of OP No.1 and 2. It is further averred that vide letter dated 08.02.2017 to the SSP, SAS Nagar request was made for registration of FIR under Section 420 IPC against Navjeet Singh, President of OP No.1. OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. The complainant submitted in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22. OP No.1 and 2 submitted documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and OP No.3 submitted affidavit of Shri Meetinder Singh, District Town Planner alongwith documents.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.3 and have gone through the record of the case. None appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2.
5. The CC became member of OP No.1 society by submitting application alongwith membership fee of Rs.10,000/-. The CC has proved on record various receipts to show that he has made payment of Rs.17,35,750/- to OP No.1 and 2 on various dates which fact has not been denied by the OP No.1 and 2 in their written version. It is also proved on the file that Navjit Singh, President of the OP society is in jail. OP No.1 and 2 have not led any evidence that the plot was ready for possession to the CC. They have simply denied the averments of the complaint in their written version which is not signed by the OPs. It is simply averred in the written version of the OP No.1 and 2 that the CC has defaulted in making payment, but no evidence has been led by OP No.1 and 2 in this regard. During proceedings of the complaint, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 had suffered statement on 27.06.2018 that they are ready to give physical possession of Plot No.523 measuring 200 sq. yards in Sector 110-111-112 and are ready to get the sale deed registered in the name of the CC. It was further stated that physical possession of the plot will be handed over after receipt of cheque of the settled amount. However, inspite of this OP No.1 and 2 have failed to honour the statement made on their behalf by their counsel which shows the conduct of OP No.1 and 2 that they are not in a position to handover the plot to the CC. Thus, the CC has been able to prove deficiency in service and mal practice on the part of OP No.1 and 2.
ow
6. Perusal of contents of written version of OP No.3 shows that it has initiated action against OP No.1 and 2 for violation of provisions of Section 36 (1) of PAPRA Act. This shows that as and when OP No.3 got the knowledge regarding cheating habits of OP No.1 and 2 then OP No.3 issued public notice through newspapers and even took action for registration of FIR against Navjeet Singh President of the OP No.1 society. In view of this, it is held that OP No.3 discharged its duties of control and regulating the activities of promoters to whom developer license was granted by it. The CC had never availed the services of OP No.3 for consideration allegedly paid or promised to be paid and as such certainly relationship of consumer and service provider do not exist between the CC and OP No.3. So deficiency in service on part of OP No.3 is proved.
7. In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint against OP No.1 and 2 and complaint against OP No.3 is dismissed. The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.17,35,750/- (Rs. Seventeen Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty only) to the CC alongwith interest @9% per annum from the dates of deposits till payment. The OP No.1 and 2 jointly and severally are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
December 03, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
