DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:  19.01.2017                                                         Date of decision   :  03.12.2021

Amrik Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh, resident of VPO Chanali, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Yellow Stone Landmark Infocity through is authorized representative/Sales Manager, Sector 66-A, Mohali, District Mohali.

2.     Yellow Stone Builder’s Private Limited through its authorized representative/Manager having its Corporate Office at SCO 66-A, Mohali.

Now substituted with name of Aeropolis Infrastructure Private Limited through Managing Director Tejinder Singh Bhatia, SCO 161-162, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, vide order dated 03.06.2019.

……..Opposite Parties

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member

Present:    Shri Suresh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri B.S. Mittal, counsel for the OPs.

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 as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), on the ground that the CC              during service in M/s. Philips India Limited, Mohali, booked LIG apartment measuring 600 sq. ft. in basic sale price of Rs.14,00,000/- in the Integrated IT Township known as Yellowstone Landmark Infocity developed by Sukhum Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.. Agreement dated 17.05.2012 was entered by employees union of the CC with the Yellowstone Builders Pvt. Ltd.  Possession of the flat was to be handed over within 18 months with extended tenure of six months from the date of agreement.  The CC deposited an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- with the OPs on 09.07.2012. The OPs vide letter dated 11.11.2013 informed that the construction will start by 25.12.2013.  Through letter dated 15.12.2013 OPs intimated the Union that the process of finalizing the contracts for infrastructure works of roads, water supply and sewerage etc. going on and assurance was given to develop the site by March, 2014. Later on at the intervention of Employees Union of complainant, assurance was given for completion of works by December, 2015 failing which undertaking was given to refund the entire amount as per GMADA norms.

                Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs.2,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The CC further  demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.  The complaint of the CC is duly signed and also supported by an affidavit.

2.             The OPs failed to file reply despite availing various opportunities and vide order dated 25.07.2017 passed by this Commission, the right of the OPs for filing reply was struck off.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and thereafter closed evidence.  Shri J.S. Sodhi, Manager of OPs tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

5.             The OPs has acknowledged receipt of payment of Rs.2,80,000/- by the CC vide their letter dated 09.07.2012 Ex.C-2. Vide letter Ex.C-4 Sukham Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. informed the Union of the CC that the work would be completed by December, 2015.  Despite that, work of the project was not completed. The CC even sent legal notice Ex.C-5 to OPs through postal receipt Ex.C-8 vide which the CC requested the OPs to refund the amount with interest and pay compensation amount also. It is writ large on the file that the possession of the flat has not been handed over to the CC which is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.             Even if in earlier complaint filed by Krishan Kumar Gupta against OPs, some compromise was arrived at, despite that benefit of same cannot be availed by the CC, because interest @ 18% per annum through order Ex.C-7 was allowed on the basis of compromise arrived at between complainant in that case with OPs of the present case. But that compromise is not binding on the present case.  

7.             In view of above discussion, we allow the present complaint. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.2,80,000/- to the CC alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposits  till payment. The OPs are further burdened to pay a lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- 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