ROOPINDER SINGH NAHAL Vs. SHALIMAR ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2012-6-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 01,2012

Roopinder Singh Nahal Appellant
VERSUS
Shalimar Estate Private Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS complaint was originally filed by Smt. Harbhajan Kaur Nahal, who died during the pendency thereof on 21.10.2011, and on the basis of an application, duly supported by a copy of the Will dated 7.8.2003 (AnnexureA -2), Roopinder Singh Nahal, her son and legal heir, was impleaded as complainant in her place as envisaged by Section 13(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).
(2.)THE facts of the complaint, in brief, are that Smt Harbhajan Kaur Nahal (now deceased), in order to start another source of livelihood, purchased a product brochure, alongwith an application form, from the opposite party, for allotment of one showroom in Shalimar Plaza, Mohali and submitted the same within the currency of the scheme, which opened on 2.2.2006, and closed on 17.2.2006. The draw of lots for the allotment of showroom was held on 25.2.2006 and the opposite party informed the complainant that she was successful in the same and ashowroom in Category 'C' measuring 400 sq. ft. on Floor Level IV stood allotted to her. She paid Rs. 23,30,000 to the opposite party, without any delay, on different dates, being 70% of the total cost of the showroom As per the brochure, the possession was to be handed over within two years, but the same was not done, despite many visits and demand letter dated 4.2.2010 sent to the opposite party. Hence this complaint under Section 17 of the Act alleging that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and unfair trade practice, was filed.
(3.)THE opposite party, in its written reply, took up the preliminary objections, that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer; and that the complaint involved complicated questions of law and fact. On merits, the fact with regard to the booking of showroom and the payments made by the complainant were admitted. However, it was stated that vide acceptancecum -demand letter dated 28.2.2006, the complainant was only informed regarding acceptance of application No. 1815 for registration of allotment of commercial showroom of Category C in Shalimar Plaza, I.T. City, Mohali and it was, nowhere, stated therein that the showroom was allotted to her. It was further stated that the construction of entire ten storey building, including two basements, had been completed, and the finishing works were in progress. It was further stated that delay in the completion of project was due to force majeure circumstances. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering, service, or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite party.
The parties led evidence, in support of their case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.