State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amriss Builders And Others vs Pardeep Kumar on 30 March, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.2159 of 2010
Date of institution: 23.12.2010
Date of decision : 30.03.2012
1. M/s Amriss Builders & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Adm Office SCO 161-
62, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Directors.
2. Deleted vide order dated 10.3.2011.
3. Jaspal Singh Sadana, Director, Amriss Builders & Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. C/o Dr.Parminder Sadana, SCO 64, 1st Floor, 3B2, SAS
Nagar..
.....Appellants
Versus
Pardeep Kumar Das s/o Late Hari Pda Das at present residing at 32,
Judges Court Road, Kolkata, West Bengal and # 3062, LIG, Sector 70,
Mohali, District SAS Nagar through her special power of attorney
Smt.Shipra Dass daughter of Late Hari Pada Das # 3062, LIG, Sector 70,
Mohali, District SAS Nagar.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated
01.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
For the respondent : Sh.N.S.Diwana, Adv.
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the following 10 appeals : - 1. First Appeal No.970 of 2010
(M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar ) 2. First Appeal No.971 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Singh )
3. First Appeal No.2152 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd.
v. Baljinder Singh )
4. First Appeal No.2153 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 2
v. Harjinder Singh )
5. First Appeal No. 2154 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kaur )
6. First Appeal No.2155 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Manu Bhardwaj )
7. First Appeal No.2156 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Surinder Pal Kaur )
8. First Appeal No.2157 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Shipra Das )
9. First Appeal No.2158 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Latika Das )
10. First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 (M/s Amariss Builders and Conulstants Pvt. Ltd. v. Pardeep Kumar Das )
2. The same questions of law and facts are involved in all the aforesaid appeals and, therefore, the same are being disposed of through this single order. The facts are being taken from First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 (M/s Amriss Builders & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Pardeep Kumar Das) and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
3. Pardeep Kumar Das complainant-respondent deposited with the OP-appellants Rs.4 lacs towards the booking of a flat to be constructed by the OP-appellants known as 'Vrindavan Apartments' at Mohali. It was advertised by the OP-appellants that the land has been acquired near newly expanded Sector 66B, Mohali and very near to Phase 10 Cricket Stadium and Fortis Hospital. However, after depositing the initial amount, no further information was received from the OP- appellants and in December, 2008, the complainant-respondent came to know from one other applicant of the said flats that no such housing scheme was being developed near Mohali by the OP-appellants. The complainant-respondent then made enquiries and approached the OP- appellants for refund of the amount but they neither showed any land for First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 3 refunding the amount and rather threatened the complainant- respondent not to talk to them again. Ultimately, in May, 2010, the complainant-respondent approached at their residence and came to know of a resolution passed by the OP-appellants authorising Tejinder Singh OP No.2 and Jaspal Singh OP-appellant No.3 to take steps to refund the money received from various persons for the construction of the flats. However, the OP-appellants refunded only a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant-respondent. When the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was not refunded, the complainant-respondent filed the present complaint requesting for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. since the date of deposit i.e. 11.11.2005 till payment, Rs.1 lac for mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. The complaint was contested by the OP-appellants alleging that they never made any advertisement nor invited bookings. Receipt Ex.C1 was said to be a forged and fabricated document and the complainant-respondent had no locus standi to file the complaint. It was alleged that the administrative office of the OP-appellants is at Chandigarh and, therefore, the learned District Forum, Mohali has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. According to them, Navdeep Singh was one of the Directors of the OP-appellants who by committing fraud had received certain amounts on the pretext that the OP-appellants were constructing the flats. When this fact came to the knowledge of the OP- appellants, they removed him from the Board of Directors. It was alleged that serious questions of law and facts including fraud, forgery, cheating and fabrication are involved which should not be tried by the learned District Forum. On merits, it was admitted that Navjit Singh who was Director of the Company in connivance with some local property dealers collected the money in the name of the company and issued receipts to them. They claimed to have filed a complaint with the police against him and removed him from the Board of Directors. It was further mentioned First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 4 that the location of the flat has been wrongly mentioned and in fact, from the very beginning, the proposed flats were to come up in Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar. According to them, the location of the proposed flats was widely publicised through advertisement in various newspapers when the foundation stone of the project was laid. However, the project was, subsequently, abandoned as the majority of the investors who had deposited first instalments failed to deposit the second instalment. It was alleged that though the first instalment deposited by the investors could be forfeited yet they refunded the amount in order to maintain its goodwill. According to the OP-appellants, the complainant- respondent never approached them with valid proof of deposit of the amount and has levelled false and frivolous allegations and that the complainant-respondent is not their consumer. The other allegations were also denied.
5. Both the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on file, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.9.2010 directed the OP-appellants to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 11.11.2005 on Rs.1.5 lacs and with effect from 11.4.2006 on Rs.1 lac till the date of actual refund and also to pay litigation expenses to the tune of rs.5000/-. It was held that since the interest on the booking amount is allowed, no separate amount for compensation and mental agony is allowed. The OP-appellants have challenged the same through this appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record including the written arguments submitted by the appellants.
8. Ex.C2 is the receipt dated 11.11.2005, vide which, Pardeep Das respondent deposited a sum of Rs.3 lacs with OP-appellants. Ex.C3 First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 5 is the receipt dated 17.4.2006, vide which, Rs.1 lac more was deposited with them by the complainant-respondent. The OP-appellants have not challenged the issuance of these receipts. They have admitted having advertised the project for construction of flats and having received the instalments towards its construction. It was admitted by them in para 7 of the reply and the affidavit of Jaspal Singh Sadana that the proposed flats were to come up in Sunny Enclave, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and were widely publicised through advertisement in the newspaper when the foundation stone of the project was laid. It was further admitted in para 4 of the affidavit of Jaspal Singh Sadana that the said project had to be abandoned because the many of the investors who booked their flats in the project failed to make the payment of the second instalment despite repeated calls and reminders. In respect of Pardeep Das complainant also, the OP-appellants had sent letter and reminder asking him to make the payment of the second instalment but according to the appellants, he failed to deposit the same. It was alleged that OP No.1 paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant-respondent as a goodwill gesture and asked him to take back the remaining principal amount but he was insisting for interest @ 18% p.a. and damages. It was alleged that OP No.1 is ready and willing to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant-respondent. In this manner, the entire claim made by the complainant-respondent about the deposit of amount and non-construction of flats by the OP-appellants thereby rendering them guilty of deficiency in service stands not only admitted but also duly proved.
9. Since the OP-appellants have neither forfeited the amount nor were they entitled to forfeit the same nor they have constructed the flats, the only course open to them was to return the amount received from the complainant-respondent.
10. According to the OP-appellants, they were ready to refund the principal amount but the complainant-respondent started First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 6 demanding interest @ 18% per annum thereon, due to which, the amount could not be refunded. The complainant-respondent has produced on file Ex.C4, a specimen of the application form submitted by him in Condition No.6, of which, it is mentioned that if the payment of any instalment is delayed, the OP-appellants would be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum. Ordinarily, if the complainant-respondents are liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum, the OP-appellants should also be held liable to pay interest at this rate if the amount is not promptly refunded. However, the learned District Forum has allowed interest only @ 9% per annum which is not excessive.
11. The flats were booked in the year 2005 and since then, the prices of the immovable property and building material have sky rocketed. It would be difficult if not impossible for the complainant-respondent to get a flat in that amount today. The OP-appellants by their reckless decisions have deprived the complainants of the facility of a residential flat by keeping them in waiting for such a long period. They have also caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant-respondent by not refunding their amount promptly so that they could have booked some other flat in some other locality. The conduct of the OP-appellants made them liable to pay adequate amount to the complainant- respondent towards compensation for harassment and for escalation of prices of the properties and building material but surprisingly, the learned District Forum felt that granting 9% interest would take care of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant-respondent. In fact, 9% interest hardly takes care of the damages suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OP-appellants who withheld his amount unnecessarily. It could not have been an answer for the other harassment and mental tension suffered by the complainant-respondent for which the learned District Forum was empowered to award compensation but unfortunately did not. Since the complainant- First Appeal No.2159 of 2010 7 respondent has not filed any appeal asking for this relief, we are handicapped in allowing the same to the complainant-respondent.
12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the decisions of the learned District Forum to allow refund of the amount with interest and litigation costs is based on sound proposition of law and it does not suffer from any infirmity except the one mentioned above. However, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- in each appeal.
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 23.12.2010. This amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER March 30, 2012.
Paritosh Refer to Reporter