Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/51/2022

Narinder Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

YPS Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S. K. Verma Adv.

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

 

Appeal No	:	A/51/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	10/05/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	30/09/2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Narinder Verma wife of Mr. S.K. Verma, Resident of 3002, S.B.I. Officers Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh – 160047.

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

 

[1]  M/s YPS Developers [P] Ltd. 

 

[a]  Registered Address:

     B-101, Somvihar,

     R.K. Puram, New Delhi – 110022.

 

Also at

 

[b]  Site Office:

     YPS Developers [P] Ltd.,

     Dwarika, Madhuban Bapudham,

     Govind Puram, Ghaziabad – 201013.

 

[c]  Through its Directors

     Mr. Yag Pal Singh & Prince Chaudhary,

     P-1, Sanjay Nagar,

     Ghaziabad – 201002.

 

[2]  Mr. Yag Pal Singh S/o Sh. Jagveer Singh, Resident of P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.

 

[3]  Mr. Prince Chaudhary S/o Mr. Yag Pal Singh, Resident of P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.  

 

[4]  Mr. Lalit Bindal S/o Sh. G.C. Bindal, Resident of 14/84, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.

    

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA      MEMBER

MR. PREETINDER SINGH    MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Respondents ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2022.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the Ld. Lower Commission), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/112/2021, in the following terms:-

“8.       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the OPs:-

a]        To refund a sum of Rs.7,22,788/- and Rs.12,80,000/- i.e. the amounts of the cheques in question issued in favour of the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its issuance i.e. 18.08.2016 till its actual realization.

[b]       To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and physical harassment complaint.

[c]       To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

9.       This order shall be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr. No.(b) from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.”

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/ Complainant that being convinced by the Project and its features as explained, offer given and the assurances made by Respondent/OP No.4 and especially the assured return and personal guarantee given by Respondent/OP No.4, she booked the flat No.A1605 Tower A (at 16th Floor) in the project of Respondent/OP No.1 known as ‘Dwarika’ in Madhuban Bapudham by paying a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs vide cheque dated 27.03.2014.  Thereafter, she deposited a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque dated 27.05.2014 and Rs.5,30,000/- vide cheque dated 03.06.2014.  Subsequently an agreement dated 25.07.2014 was signed between the Appellant/ complainant and Respondent/OP No.1 and as per which the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 42 months from 30.07.2014.  However, even after completion of two years, the project was not started contrary to the assurances made and hence there was bleak chances of the success of the said project and, therefore, she approached the Respondents/OPs for refund of the deposited amount along with the guaranteed return as per the assurances made. Consequently, Respondent/OP No.2 on behalf of Respondent/ OP No.1 issued two post-dated cheques both dated 18.08.2016 in the sum of Rs.12.80 lakhs as principal amount and Rs.7,22,788/- as guaranteed return. It was averred that Respondent/OP No.4, on the assurances of getting new cheques in favour of the Appellant/complainant, got the earlier cheques from her in the presence of Mr. Veer Singh and Mr. Naveen Bindal, Advocates but he failed to get the new cheques issued. Since the payment was delayed for a longer period expected as assured, thereupon Respondent/OP No.4 made a proposal to get a piece of land out of 52000 sq. yards belonging to Respondent/OP No.1 as the high rise project was rejected by the concerned authorities and now Respondent/OP No.1 is selling the plots in the project site.  She agreed to purchase the piece of land at Rs.18000/- per sq. meters.  In December, 2018, Respondent/OP No.4 informed the Appellant’s husband Mr. S.K. Verma that Mr. Y.P. Singh had accepted the proposal on rates on behalf of Respondent/OP No.1 company and he would send the layout plan choosing the plots for registry of sale of land. In February, 2019, Respondent/OP No.4 again made a promise that by 31.03.2019 either the land was to be transferred in the name of the Appellant/complainant or full payment along with the guaranteed return @ 25% p.a. and yearly compounding on the amount of earlier cheques issued to the Appellant/complainant till the payment was to be made. As desired, she sent the calculation to Respondent/OP No.1 Mr. Lalit Bindal through whatsapp on 03.03.2019 stating that total refund comes to Rs.58,16,651/-. Finally, she got served a legal notice dated 09.05.2019 upon the Respondents/OPs No.1, 2 and 4 requiring them either to make full payment with interest or to sell the land @ Rs.18000/- per sq. yards.  Respondents/OPs No.2 and 3 replied the said notice stating therein that they had paid the entire money to the Appellant/complainant in cash. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/ Opposite Parties.

 

3.      The Respondents were duly served but they did not appear, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.08.2022.

 

4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    

 

5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Complainant.

 

6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel  for the Appellant and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

 

7.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

8.      There is overwhelming evidence on record with regard to booking of the unit in question with Respondent/OP No.1-Company, payment receipts regarding proof of depositing the amount of Rs.12.80 lacs by the Appellant/complainant through cheques with Respondent/OP No.1-Company, execution of the agreement qua the flat in question. Issuance of cheques both dated 18.08.2016 in the sum of Rs.7,22,788/- and Rs.12,80,000/- favouring the Appellant/complainant issued by Respondent/OP No.1-Company and no objection certificate qua the unit in question executed by the Appellant/complainant on receipt of the aforesaid amounts from the Respondent/OP-Company has also been proved. Record further transpires, Respondent/OP No.4 neither issued the new cheques nor returned the principal amount and the guaranteed return despite protracted requests and service of the legal notice.

 

9.      It is important to note that despite service, the Respondents/OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte by the Ld. Lower Commission vide its order dated 28.01.2022; whereas, the defence of Respondents/OPs No.1 & 4 was struck off vide order dated 14.02.2022 since they failed to file written statement and evidence despite availing numerous opportunities.

 

10.      Even in the present proceedings, despite service, the Respondents/OPs chose not to appear before this Commission to contest the claim of the Appellant/Complainant and were thus proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2022.   

 

11.      Since the allegations set-out in the complaint goes unrebutted and unopposed in the absence of the Respondents/OPs, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held that the Respondents/OPs, who failed to fulfill their promises/assurances, cannot be allowed to usurp the hard earned money of the complainant and rightly, allowed the complaint directing the Respondents/OPs to refund a sum of Rs.7,22,788/- and Rs.12,80,000/- i.e. the amounts of the cheques in question issued in favour of the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its issuance i.e. 18.08.2016 till its actual realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

12.      Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the adjudication on the merits of the case has taken place since there was gross deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties. In nutshell, the Ld. Lower Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and allowed the Consumer Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

 

13.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed.

 

14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

15.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30^th Sept., 2022                                    

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”