OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. SUKHPREET SINGH KANG
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-1-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 20,2014

Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Limited Appellant
VERSUS
Sukhpreet Singh Kang Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under: -
"In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case against the OP. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.14.00 lacs along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. w.e.f. 12.9.2011 (Ann.C -2) till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/ -.

This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to refund the said amount of Rs.14.00 lacs along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. w.e.f. 12.9.2011 (Ann.C -2) till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost as aforesaid."

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked a plot, in the residential township project of the Opposite Party, under the name and style of "Omaxe New Chandigarh", and paid a sum of Rs.14.00 lacs, at the time of booking of the same, against receipt dated 12.09.2011 Annexure C -2. It was stated that the family members of the complainant, received a letter dated 24.01.2013 from the Opposite Party, vide which it was informed that booking of the said plot, had been cancelled, on the ground of non -payment of the timely installments, in respect of the same. It was further stated that, at the time of booking the complainant gave a partially filled application form, to the Opposite Party, and he was supplied a copy of the same (application form), as also the terms and conditions appended thereto only. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, never supplied any payment schedule, to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant never received any demand notice for payment, from the Opposite Party, after booking of the said plot. It was further stated that there was no development, at the site, where the plot, in question, was to be carved out. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking/application form, the allotment of plot was to be made and Buyer's Agreement was to be signed, but till date neither the allotment had been made, in favour of the complainant, nor the Buyer's Agreement had been got signed. Moreover, there was no clear cut time mentioned for handing over possession of the plot, in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that when the matter was taken up with the Opposite Party, its Officials stated that the amount deposited by him, towards the said plot, would be refunded, after deducting 20% of the earnest money. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 03.05.2013 was served upon the Opposite Party, to refund the entire amount, deposited by the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to refund the amount of Rs.14 lacs, alongwith interest @9% P.A., from the date of deposit; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.55,000/ -.
(3.)THE Opposite Party, in its written version admitted that the complainant booked a residential plot, in its project. It was also admitted, that at the time of booking the plot, a sum of Rs.14.00 lacs, was paid as booking amount, by the complainant. It was stated that the complainant was well aware of the payment schedule. It was further stated that it was clear from the application form that the complainant opted for the installment plan. It was further stated that reminders for making the payment of installments were sent to the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant failed to pay even a single installment, in time, despite sending reminders to him. It was further stated that left with no option, the Opposite Party was forced to cancel the unit, in question. It was further stated that, even despite sending the final letter dated 24.01.2013, not even a single payment was made by the complainant. Ultimately, the allotment of plot, in question, in favour of the complainant, had to be cancelled, and the amount detailed therein was forfeited. It was further stated that, since the cancellation of plot was made, on account of the fault of the complainant, he was not entitled to the refund of entire booking amount, but was only entitled to the same, after deduction of 20%, without any interest, as also cost of litigation. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.



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