State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Col.B.S.Goraya vs M/S Taneja Developers Infrastructure on 19 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010
Date of Institution : 19.07.2010
Date of decision : 19.03.2012
Col.B.S.Goraya, resident of House No.208, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Taneja Developers Infrastructure TDI Limited, Regd. Office 9,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110009.
2. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. SCO.1098-99, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
...Respondents
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh.B.S.Goraya (in person).
For the respondents : Sh.S.K.Monga, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT
The respondents invited applications through advertisement and publicity through estate agents from prospective purchasers to deposit the money for advance booking of residential plots in future scheme on National Highway between Mohali to Kharar. It was July, 2005. It was stated that the plots would be allotted within six months after the advance booking was made. The money of advance booking to the tune of 20% of the plot price of Rs.17.375 lacs was to be deposited and the area of the plot was 250 square yards.
2. The complainant felt allured and he deposited a sum of Rs.3,56,188/- on 16.7.2005 being 20% of the plot price measuring 250 square yard. The respondents issued the receipt No.10864 dated 18.8.2005.
3. It was further pleaded that the complainant received a letter from the respondents dated 25.10.2006 (Ex.C3) that if the complainant wanted to have extra preferential location and priority for allotment, then he has to deposit another amount of Rs.1,65,062/- being 10% of the total plot price in advance. The complainant felt attracted to this offer and he deposited the amount of Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 2 Rs.1,65,062/- on 16.11.2006 in the ICICI bank of the respondent, for which the respondents issued the receipt dated 17.11.2006 (Ex.C4). The priority number of the complainant was written as 220.
4. It was further pleaded that on 31.1.2008 again the complainant received another communication (Ex.C5) from the respondents to pay another amount of Rs.1,73,750/-, which was shown as outstanding due against the complainant. It was also mentioned that the project of the respondent was coming up on Kharar Mohali Road very shortly. On 8.2.2008 (Ex.C6), the complainant informed the respondents that as per terms of the registration form, further instalments were to be deposited within two months after the date of launching the project as well as after the allotment of the plot. The complainant has already made payment of Rs.1,65,062/- as advance towards the priority location plot but the allotment letter has not been received by him.
5. The complainant received another letter dated 26.4.2008 (Ex.C7) from the respondents demanding an amount of Rs.2,06,250/-. It was stated that the complainant has to pay all the instalments even if project has not started or the plot has not been allotted. The respondents had ignored the letter dated 8.2.2008 (Ex.C6), which was written by the complainant to them.
6. It was further pleaded that the complainant sent in reply letter dated 3.5.2008 (Ex.C8) to the respondents seeking allotment of a residential plot. The complainant also wrote that the time schedule of the payment was not given and that the respondents have also ignored the principle that the payments are to be made after the allotment of the plot was made. On 7.5.2008, a telephone call was received from the respondents informing him that he was being allotted plot facing the park i.e. priority location plot as Rs.43437.50 already stood paid by him.
7. It was further pleaded that on 8.7.2008, the complainant received another letter (Ex.C9) from the respondents asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- which was amount of the outstanding instalments. The schedule of payment was also enclosed along with that letter. The date of launching the scheme was mentioned as 22.1.2008. On this the complainant met the Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 3 representative of the respondents in their office at Chandigarh on 19.7.2008. He was Amit Batra. The complainant was told that plot No.635 stood allotted to the complainant on National Highway Mohali Kharar Road. After receiving this oral information, the complainant made the payment of Rs.3,80,000/- to the respondents, for which three receipts dated 19.7.2008 (collectively Ex.C10) were issued by the respondents. The respondents also promised that allotment letter would be issued within ten days.
8. It was further pleaded that on 7.10.2008, the complainant wrote a letter (Ex.C11) to the respondents asking for the issuance of the allotment letter of plot No.635 as was promised by Amit Batra, office incharge. The respondents sent letter dated 1.11.2008 (Ex.C12) to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.2,06,250/- towards 40% of the sale consideration and 100% of the tentative Extra Development Charges. In response, the complainant wrote letter dated 1.12.2008 (Ex.C13) informing the respondents that he had received a telephone communication from Delhi office for contacting Chandigarh office of the respondents for the purpose of collecting the allotment letter. Accordingly, the complainant went to Chandigarh office of the respondents for a number of times. In spite of repeated visits and after meeting Jaspreet Kaur Grewal, Marketing Manager of the respondents, the allotment letter for plot No.635 was not issued. The complainant had also told the representative of the respondents that further amount would be paid only after the receipt of the allotment letter.
9. It was further pleaded that Jaspreet Kaur Grewal, Manager of the respondents informed the complainant on 2.12.2008 that plot No.878 was being allotted to him in place of plot No.635 and allotment letter would be issued very shortly. Plot No.878 was not located in Phase I facing National Highway but it was located in Phase II, wherein the market price of the plot was about Rs.4 lacs less than the market price of plot No.635. The complainant sent letter dated 31.12.2008 (Ex.C14) to the respondents asking them to confirm their commitment for the allotment of plot as he has not yet received the allotment letter, but the respondents failed to respond. The respondents sent a letter dated 23.2.2009 (Ex.C15) to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.7,57,906/- Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 4 towards 70% of the sale consideration and 100% of tentative EDC against the allotted plot.
10. It was further pleaded that the complainant received the allotment letter dated 9.12.2008 (Ex.C16) which was signed on 12.3.2009 vide which the residential plot No.878 in forthcoming fully integrated township that IDI city at Mohali, Northern side of Kharar Road along with description "Park adjoining" was allotted to the complainant. On the reverse side of the allotment letter issued by the respondents, the complainant was supposed to declare that he had understood terms and conditions and thus was agreeable to these conditions. Inspite of condition No.2, the complainant received a letter dated 22.5.2009 (Ex.C17) asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.7,57,906/-. The complainant vide his letter dated 31.5.2009 (Ex.C18) informed the respondents that at present no amount was payable by the complainant to the respondents as per payment schedule reflected in the letter.
11. It was further pleaded that the respondents had floated another scheme for allotment of shop cum office in the forthcoming project at Mohali. The complainant along with Jiwandeep Singh Ghai had booked shop cum office in the upcoming project of the respondents at Mohali and had made the payment of Rs.17.50 lacs through HDFC bank on 11.10.2008. The HDFC bank was the banker of the respondents. The respondents had promised to the complainant and to Jiwandeep Singh Ghai that a shop cum office would be allotted to them within six months from the date of payment. Although the payment was made by the complainant and by Jiwandeep Singh Ghai jointly to the respondents to the tune of Rs.17.50 lacs in October, 2008, but no allotment letter had been received even after the lapse of one year. The complainant and Jiwandeep Singh Ghai had demanded a refund of Rs.17.50 lacs with interest vide their letter dated 13.8.2009 (Ex.C19), but neither the refund has been made to the complainant nor the plot has been allotted.
12. It was further pleaded that the complainant had requested the respondents to adjust the amount of Rs.17.50 lacs deposited towards the shop cum office towards the amount payable against the residential plot No.878 Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 5 allotted by the respondents to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 3.12.2008. In spite of these dealings, the complainant received final reminder dated 8.9.2009 (Ex.C20) from the respondents asking him to pay an amount of Rs.9,06,370/- against residential plot No.878 without paying any attention to the letters sent by the complainant to the respondents on 13.8.2009 seeking refund of Rs.17.50 lacs.
13. It was further pleaded that the complainant sent another letter dated 12.10.2009 (Ex.C21) to the respondents informing the respondents that no payment has been delayed by the complainant and the question of cancellation of the allotment of residential plot did not arise. The respondents was also told that they have not been allotted shop cum office nor they have refunded the money. It was also requested that the amount of Rs.17.50 lacs be refunded, so that the payment is made against the residential plot. Without considering the letter of the complainant, the respondents cancelled residential plot No.878 on 3.12.2009 (Ex.C22) nor they refunded the amount of Rs.17.50 lacs already paid to the respondents against the shop cum office.
14. Hence the complaint seeking direction against the respondents to set aside the cancellation of residential plot No.878, to pay an amount of Rs.4 lacs as compensation to the complainant for not allotting residential plot No.635. Compensation for mental tension and harassment and costs of proceedings were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
15. The respondents filed the written reply. It is pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable; the complainant was not a consumer qua the respondents within the meaning of Section 2(i) (d); the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission was also disputed.
16. On merits, it was denied that if the respondents had made any publicity inviting application for advance booking in July, 2005 for residential plots. It was however, admitted that the respondents have their branch office in Chandigarh.
17. It was admitted that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.3,56,188/- as advance booking for a plot measuring 250 square yards in future township of Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 6 Mohali Kharar road started by the respondents. The rate of land was Rs.6950/- per square yard. It was also admitted that the respondents had despatched the letter dated 25.10.2006 to the complainant asking for an amount of Rs.1,65,062/- for extra preferential location. It was also not denied if the complainant had deposited this amount of Rs.1,65,062/- vide cheque dated 16.11.2006 for which the receipt was issued by the respondents on 17.11.2006.
18. It was not disputed that the respondents had demanded another amount of Rs.1,73,750/- vide order dated 31.1.2008. However, it was denied that if the complainant had sent letter dated 8.2.2008 to the respondents. It was admitted that the respondents had written letter dated 26.4.2008 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs. 2,06,250/-, but it was denied if the complainant had sent letter dated 3.5.2008 to the respondents. It was denied if the complainant had made payment of Rs.43437.50 towards the priority location along with 20% of the costs of the plot.
19. It was also admitted that the respondents had sent letter dated 8.7.2008 demanding an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- towards the 40% of sale consideration and 50% of extra development charges and that the complainant had deposited this amount of Rs.3,80,000/- vide cheque dated 19.7.2008. It was denied if Amit Batra had told the complainant that plot No.635 was allotted to the complainant. It was admitted that the respondents had received a letter dated 7.10.2008 written by the complainant to them. It was also admitted that the respondents had sent letter dated 1.11.2008 to the complainant and the complainant had sent the letter dated 1.12.2008 to the respondents. It was, however, specifically denied if Jaspreet Kaur Grewal, Marketing Manager of the respondents had ever informed the respondents that allotment letter of plot No.635 would be issued in few days.
20. It was admitted that the allotment letter dated 19.12.2008 was issued to the complainant along with terms and conditions relating to plot No.878 and the complainant had sent letter dated 31.12.2008 to the respondents. It was repeatedly denied if plot No.635 was ever allotted to the complainant. It was admitted that the respondents had written letter dated 23.2.2009 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.7,57,906/- towards 70% of sale Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 7 consideration and 100% of the tentative EDC against the allotted plot. It was denied that if the letter dated 19.12.2008 was sent to the complainant on 12.3.2009. It was admitted that the respondents had sent letter dated 22.5.2009 to the complainant as the complainant had defaulted in making the payment as per letter dated 23.2.2009. It was admitted that the respondents had received letter dated 31.5.2009 from the complainant in reply to letter dated 22.5.2009.
21. It was also admitted that the complainant along with Jiwandeep Singh Ghai had booked shop cum office after making the payment of Rs.17.5 lacs vide three different cheques. Two cheques for Rs.5 lacs each were given by Jiwandeep Singh Ghai and one cheque of Rs.7.5 lacs was given by the complainant relating to plot of SCO. It was denied that if any assurance was given to the complainant that plot of SCO would be allotted to them within six months from the date of deposit of Rs.17.50 lacs in October, 2008. It was denied if the complainant had ever asked for refund of amount. Moreover, the SCO was got booked by two applicants and the amount of this SCO could not be refunded to the complainant alone. Therefore, the request of the complainant could not be considered for refund of Rs.17.5 lacs.
22. It was further pleaded that the respondents had issued cancellation letter dated 3.12.2009 for the plot bearing No.878 measuring 250 square yard as the complainant had failed to make the payment to the respondents. It was denied that if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
DISCUSSION
23. The complainant has produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22, while the respondents filed documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.
24. The submission of the complainant was that the complaint be accepted, the cancellation of plot No.878 be set aside and the complainant be awarded adequate compensation.
25. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merits in the present complaint and same be dismissed.
26. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered. Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 8
27. Admittedly, the complainant had deposited an amount of RS.3,56,188/- with the respondents representing 20% of the plot price measuring 250 square yards in future township meant for Mohali sponsored by the respondents. The total price of the plot was Rs.17,37,500/-. The denial of the respondents in para 1 of written reply that they had not advertised nor publicity was issued to invite applications for advance booking of residential plots in July, 2005 is totally false. If it had been true from where the complainant had come to know of this scheme sponsored by the respondents and why the respondents had accepted the amount of Rs.3,56,188/- from the complainant on 15.7.2005 (Ex.C1) and receipt dated 16.7.2005 (Ex.C2). Why did the respondents get printed the advance registration forms (Ex.C1). This clearly reveals that the respondents are even denying those facts which are proved by the documents of the respondents and are clearly proved by their conduct.
28. Thereafter the complainant had also made payment of Rs.1,65,062/- vide cheque dated 16.11.2006 for which the receipt was issued by the respondents on 17.11.2006 (Ex.C4).
29. The respondents had been asking the complainant to deposit other amount vide letter dated 31.1.2008 (Ex.C5), which was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 8.2.2008 (Ex.C6). Thereafter the complainant received another letter dated 26.4.2008 (Ex.C7) from the respondents demanding an amount of Rs.2,06,250/-. It was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 3.5.2008 (Ex.C8). The complainant received another letter dated 8.7.2008 (Ex.C9) from the respondents demanding a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-. This amount was paid by the complainant for which the three receipts dated 19.7.2008 (Ex.C10 collectively) were issued by the respondents. However, the complainant had not received the allotment letter for residential plot No.635 on which the complainant had sent letter dated 7.10.2008 (Ex.C11).
30. The respondents had sent another letter to the complainant on 1.11.2008 (Ex.C11) demanding an amount of Rs.2,06,250/-. This letter was replied by the complainant on 1.12.2008 (Annexure C-13). The complainant had received a telephonic communication from Delhi on which the complainant had contacted Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 9 the office of the respondents, where Jaspreet Kaur Grewal, Manager Marketing was present. She told the complainant that plot No.878 has been allotted to him in place of plot No.635. On this the complainant had sent letter dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure C-14) to the respondents to confirm the allotment of residential plot No.878, but in return, he received the letter dated 23.2.2009 (Annexure C-15) from the respondents demanding a sum of Rs.7,57,906/-.
31. It was further pleaded that the complainant had received letter dated 9.12.2008 ( Annexure C-16) from the respondents allotting the residential plot No.878 but on the back side of this letter, the terms and conditions were printed. Thereafter, the complainant received letter dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure C-17) vide which the respondents had demanded an amount of Rs.7,57,906/-, but the complainant vide letter dated 31.5.2009 (Annexure C-18) informed the respondents that no payment plan was mentioned in the allotment letter dated 19.12.2008.
32. The complainant along with one Jiwandeep Singh Ghai had also deposited Rs.17.50 lacs with the respondents on 11.10.2008 for allotment of shop-cum-office in the forthcoming project at Mohali and the SCO was to be allotted within a period of six months from the date of deposit of money in October, 2008. No allotment was received from the respondents, on which the complainant along with Jiwandeep Singh Ghai vide letter dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure C-19) had written to the respondents to refund the amount, but the respondents had failed to refund the money. The complainant had told the respondents that after receiving the refund of Rs.17.5 lacs, he would make the payment towards the residential plot. However, the complainant received letter dated 8.9.2008 (Annexure C-20) from the respondents raising a demand of Rs.9,06,370/- against the residential plot No.878. However, no reference was made in this letter regarding refund sought by the complainant along with Jiwandeep Singh Ghai vide letter dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure C-19). In response to letter dated 8.9.2009 (Ex.C20) received from the respondents, the complainant wrote letter dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure C-21) informing the respondents that no payment has been delayed. He also informed the Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 10 respondents that after he receives the refund of Rs.17.5 lacs, he would make the payment towards the residential plot.
33. The respondents vide letter dated 3.12.2009 (Ex.C-22) cancelled the allotment of plot No.878 measuring 250 square yards in Township Project Mohali.
34. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the complainant was not a consumer qua them is totally unfounded. The complainant had booked a plot measuring 250 square yards with the respondents by depositing Rs.3,56,188/- on 16.7.2005. He had deposited an another amount of Rs.1,65,062/- on 16.11.2006. He had made another payment of Rs.3,80,000/- for which the respondents had issued the receipts dated 19.7.2008. The complainant had clearly hired the services of the respondents for the purchase of the residential plot from the respondents. Therefore, the complainant was the consumer qua the respondents.
35. The version of the respondents that money was deposited by the complainant as investor just to earn profit by raising a premium is totally misplaced. The respondents have not placed on file any documents to show if the complainant had any intention to sell this plot on a higher rate. The plot was booked by him. He had made the payment of more than Rs.9 lacs against this plot till the complaint was filed. Therefore, it is clearly proved that the complainant was the consumer qua the respondents.
36. It is really surprising that initial amount was deposited by the complainant on 16.7.2005 to the tune of Rs.3,56,188/- but the allotment letter was issued by the respondents for the first time on 9.12.2008 i.e. more than 3 years after the initial deposit. After writing letters dated 22.2.2009(Ex.C15) and dated 22.5.2009 (Ex.C17) demanding an amount of Rs.7,57,906/- and writing letter dated 8.9.2009 (Ex.C20) raising a demand of Rs.9,06,370/-, the respondents straightway cancelled the plot vide letter dated 12.10.2009. Both the letters dated 22.5.2009 and 8.9.2009 were duly replied by the complainant. He had informed the respondents that these payments were not mentioned in the allotment letter, nor any payment plan was specified in the allotment letter. Moreover, the Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 11 complainant was not running away from making the payment of balance amount. The complainant along with Jiwandeep Singh Ghai had written letter dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure C-19) to the respondents seeking refund of Rs.17.50 lacs. Thereafter the complainant had written letter dated 12.10.2009 (Ex.C-21) seeking the refund of RS.17.5 lacs, so that the payment is made towards the residential plot.
37. But without caring for these letters, the respondents straightway cancelled the plot vide letter dated 3.12.2009( Annexure C-20). It means, therefore, that the allotment letter was issued by the respondents after about 3 years from the date of first deposit and the cancellation was made within 9 months.
38. The respondents have also failed to show as to what steps were taken by them on the ground to make the residential plot ready for delivery of possession. Therefore, the cancellation of the plot was not only deficiency of service on the part of the respondents, but also unfair trade practice played by them on the complainant.
39. The respondents have taken the plea that the Govt. of Punjab with a view to attract new investment had formulated the policy 2003. Housing and Urban Development were also made the subjects of the said policy. The respondents intended to set up a Mega Housing Project in village Ballo Majra (Mohali) and submitted its proposal to Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab to develop an area of 160 acres with an investment of over Rs.266.50 crores. The said proposal was accepted by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondent company on 21.12.2005.
40. This plea instead of supporting the respondents goes against them. The respondents had undertaken the Project of setting up Mega Housing Project in village Ballo Majra not gratuitously for the Welfare of the public, it was undertaken by them only to earn money as the respondents are the business minded builders. Moreover, the plea taken by the respondents that the letter of intent was issued in favour of the respondents by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab on 21.12.2005 clearly goes against the respondents for Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 12 the reason that they had started collecting the money from the investors with effect from 16.7.2005 when even the letter of intent was not issued in their favour. If they had been genuine builders, then they would have started accepting money from the investors only after the procedural requirements were completed. But the facts stated by the respondents reveal that they were playing with the money of the persons like the complainant for their own benefit by attracting the people to invest money with them, so that they could start the mega project and make huge profits for their own self.
41. The respondents have also pleaded in para no.6 of the written reply that they had purchased 115 acres of land apart from the agreement to sell in their favour of some other land. The respondents had submitted the application with the Chief Town Planner, Punjab for change of land use (CLU) of 131 acres of land on 6.12.2006 i.e. more than one year after they had received the money from the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,56,188/- and even after they had accepted a sum of Rs.1,65,062/- on 25.10.2006. It means, therefore, that all these transactions were being made by the respondents with the money of investors. The lay out plan was approved by the competent authority on 25.3.2008 on a part of land and thereafter, the revised lay out plan of 159 acres of land was got approved by the respondents on 4.12.2008. It means, therefore, that the respondents were running their business of selling residential plot to the persons like the complainant by utilising the money of the investors. They had nothing to offer to them except extracting money from them to run their business of starting the mega project.
42. The respondents were more than keen to issue reminders to the complainant for remitting the money to the respondents, but they had not shown any urgency in issuance of the allotment letter or in making delivery of possession. The respondents had shown utmost hastiness in cancelling the plot vide letter dated 12.10.2009 i.e. merely after 6/7 months which was allotted on 9.12.2008 / 12.3.2009 i.e. it was allotted more than 3 years after accepting the booking amount. Even when they received an amount of RS.3,56,188/- on 16.7.2005, Rs.165,062/- on 16.11.2006 and Rs.3,80,000/- on 19.7.2008 against Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 13 the total price of Rs.17,37,500/-. In all, the respondents had collected Rs.9,01,250/- against the total plot price of Rs.17,37,500/- when the money collected by the respondents from the complainant to complete the preliminaries and they were nearing the destination, they cancelled the plot of the complainant. This conduct of the respondents was totally unfair and unreasonable. It clearly proved not only deficiency in service on their part but also revealed unfair trade practice.
43. If the respondents are reputed builders, they should have specified the payment plan, the approximate date, by which the allotment letter would be issued and the approximate dates by which the possession of the residential plot would be delivered. In sending reminders to the consumers asking them to deposit the money without caring for issuance of the allotment letter and without caring for the delivery of possession of the plot amounts to unfair trade practice. Whether the respondents were to deal with the various departments of the government was a concern of the respondents, the burden of which they could not put on the persons from whom they were accepting the money and who had booked the plot with the respondents. The respondents also owed some duty to them and they had some obligations towards them to maintain schedule for delivery of possession. The respondents cannot exploit the persons who deposit with them the money for a residential plot.
44. Moreover, the respondents had already with them an amount of Rs.17.5 lacs which was deposited by the complainant along with one Jiwandeep Singh Ghai. The complainant alongwith Jiwandeep Ghai had written letter dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure C-19) to the respondents seeking refund of Rs.17.5 lacs, but it hurts the respondents when they are required to refund the money or when they are required to issue the allotment letter or deliver the possession. They are happy when the customers / consumers are depositing the money with them. The respondents must have some moral values and humane element that after all the persons, who invest the money with them against the booking of plot was their hard earned money and the customers also expect corresponding duty of the respondents.
Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2010 14
45. In view of the discussion held above, we hold that the respondents have committed deficiency in service by cancelling the plot of the complainant vide letter dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure C-21) and have also displayed unfair trade practice.
46. Accordingly, this complaint is partly accepted with costs of Rs.20,000/- and the order dated 12.10.2009 vide which the respondents have cancelled residential plot No.878 in favour of the complainant is set aside. The respondents are burdened with compensation amount of Rs.1 lac for causing mental tension, agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
47. The complainant would deposit the balance amount ( by reducing the amount already paid out of Rs.17,37,500/-) within two months after receipt of a copy of this judgment. If he fails to do so then the complainant will be liable to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from today till the date of payment. The respondents will deliver the possession of residential plot No.878 to the complainant within one year after the amount was deposited by the complainant. If the respondents failed to deliver the possession of the plot to the complainant within one year, then the respondents would be liable pay interest on the amount deposited by the complainant hereafter at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the plot.
48. So far as the other amount of Rs.17.50 lacs is concerned, that was deposited by the complainant along with one Jiwandeep Singh Ghai against shop cum office. That was a separate transaction. It would be for the complainant to proceed separately against the respondents regarding that amount, if so advised.
49. The arguments in this case were heard on 6.3.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member March 19, 2012.
Davinder