BNAL PREFABS PVT. LTD. Vs. PUMA REALTORS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, in brief, are that the Complainant Company applied for a residential plot, in the project, under the name and style of IREO HAMLET of opposite party No. 1, in Sector 98, SAS Nagar, Mohali, for the personal use of its Director, namely Anuj Gupta, and his family members. The total cost of the plot, in question, was to the tune of Rs. 75,98,250. A sum of Rs. 6,50,000, along with application form, was deposited by the complainant. Receipt dated 26.4.2010 Annexure C -4, in this regard was issued by the opposite parties. The balance amount towards the price of plot, in question, was to be deposited by the Complainant Company, as per the instalment payment plan. Thereafter, provisional allotment letter dated 29.4.2011 Annexure C -6, in respect of the residential plot, bearing No. 271, measuring 307.77 square yards, along with a copy of the details thereof, and payment plan, was issued by the opposite parties, in favour of the Complainant Company. It was stated that, thereafter, the Complainant Company deposited another amount of Rs. 5,04,138, vide cheque dated 1.7.2011, drawn on the HDFC Bank Limited, Chandigarh. It was further stated that the Complainant Company also deposited an amount of Rs. 12,52,247, vide cheque No. 185361 dated 19.8.2011. Thereafter, IREO HAMLET -Plot Buyer's Agreement, Annexure C -9, was executed between the parties, on 11.8.2011. It was further stated that according to Sub -Clause 21.2 of General Clauses of IREO HAMLET -Plot Buyer's Agreement, Annexure C -9, executed between the parties, the Opposite Parties were to develop the said project, by laying roads, water lines, sewer lines, electrical lines, etc. The Complainant Company checked up and found that as per Sub -clause 11.1 of the Agreement aforesaid, possession of the plot, in question, was to be delivered to it, within 24 months, from the date of execution of the same (Agreement). It was further stated that the representative of the Complainant Company, visited the site, in December 2012, January 2013 and June 2013 and found that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, had not developed the said project, by laying roads, water lines, sewer lines, electric lines, etc. As such, they did not abide by the commitment, made by them, as per the Agreement, referred to above. After seeing that there was no development, at the site, the complainant stopped making payment of the remaining price of the plot, in question. Thereafter, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, wrote letter dated 12.7.2013, with regard to making further payments, in respect of the plot, in question. On receipt of this letter, the Complainant Company, inquired with regard to progress at the site, but it did not receive any reply, from the opposite parties. The Complainant Company received a letter dated 5.11.2013, directing it to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,52,746. The Complainant Company, accordingly, deposited the said amount of Rs. 13,52,746, on 26.11.2013. In all, the Complainant Company deposited a sum of Rs. 37,59,131, towards the part price of the said plot.

(2.) WHEN , the Complainant Company found that there was no progress, at the site, even after depositing a sum of Rs. 37,59,131, towards part price of the plot, in question, it made a request for refund of the same, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the Complainant Company, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to refund the amount of Rs. 37,59,131, aforesaid, along with interest @ 24% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits, till realization; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs. 1 lac.

(3.) IN the rejoinder, filed by the Complainant Company, it reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the opposite parties.