State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narender Kumar Jain vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure ... on 31 January, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 15.11.2011.
Date of Decision : 31.01.2014.
Narender Kumar Jain, R/o # H/3-4, First Floor, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-
110085, through his SPA Amrit Singh.
....Complainant.
Versus
Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited, SCO # 1098-1099, 1st
Floor, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
....Opposite Party.
Consumer Complaint U/s 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
.................................................... Present:- Sh. Manish Jain, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Monga, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party.
........................................................................... INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This order will dispose of the following three (3) consumer complaints, as the questions of law and facts involved in all the complaints are similar:-
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 2
Sr. Complaint Number Name of Parties
No.
1. Consumer Complaint Narender Kumar Jain Vs. Taneja
No.92 of 2011 Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
2. Consumer Complaint Shashi Sehgal Vs. Taneja
No.93 of 2011 Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
3. Consumer Complaint Raj Kumari Vs. Taneja
No.94 of 2011 Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
Facts are taken from Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this complaint.
2. Sh. Narender Kumar Jain, complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Amrit Singh.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that Complaint No.159 of 2010 "M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd." was filed in the District Consumer Forum Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "the District Forum"), Chandigarh and the same was withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action.
4. The complainant had booked a 250 sq.yds., as offered by the opposite party at Mohali. For the registration, the complainant paid Rs.3.50 lacs by way of demand draft and receipt dated 17.06.2005 was issued. For personal reasons, the complainant offered to transfer the said plot to M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Mohali (hereinafter called ' the company') and the complainant executed various documents, such as transfer letter, indemnity bond, undertaking, transferring all his rights in the said plot to the company. This fact was communicated to the opposite party by the original purchaser and the above documents were submitted to M/s In Time Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 3 New Delhi. This company is agent of opposite party and maintains its office in the same office where the registered office of the opposite party is situated.
5. In pursuance thereof, the company, on behalf of the complainant, paid a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- to the opposite party vide cheque No.724304 dated 19.03.2008 towards payment of the installment as demanded by the opposite party for the plot in question. The said cheque was duly encashed. The receipts were issued in the name of the complainant and on inquiry with regard to the transfer of the plot, the opposite party stated that the transfer will be effected soon. Thereafter, the complainant and the company had been requesting the opposite party to transfer the plot in the name of the proposed transferee i.e. the company, but despite accepting the payment, the transfer was not effected in the records of the opposite party. It seems that the opposite party did not have the plots and could not allot the plot, but accepted the money and retained the same without fulfilling their part of the obligation. The opposite party has misused the amount deposited by the complainant and other customers. The opposite party has issued a payment schedule and has mentioned the words 'date of launch' instead of words 'date of allotment'. As the plot was not transferred, so the complainant did not make further payment. The opposite party has received 30% of the total proposed cost of the plot and has not conferred any formal title deed or deed of possession/ownership upon the complainant. The opposite party was interested only to collect money from the innocent public, without allotting any plot.
6. The opposite party submitted the proposal to Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Punjab, which was accepted and Letter of Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 4 Intent (LOI) was issued by the Directorate on 12.12.2005 and the opposite party was to get the layout plan of Mega Projects approved from the competent authority under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995. After issuance of the Letter of Intent to the projects, promoter/developer cannot make any advertisement for sale of plots or pre-launch their scheme or collect the payment without prior approval of the layout plan, but in the present case, the opposite party solicited deposits from many investors, including complainant before issuance of Letter of Intent which was issued on 21.12.2005 and other approvals were obtained much later. The opposite party is misleading the public, by inviting the applications when it was not authorized to do so. Without the transfer of the plot, the opposite party cannot demand more money.
7. Vide letter dated 12.01.2010, request to transfer the plot was reiterated and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- was sought to be paid vide cheque No.724324 dated 12.01.2010 towards transfer fee and cheque No.724330 of Rs.12.25 lacs as 50% of the cost of the plot with external development charges so as to make the total payment equivalent to 80% of the cost. For some strange reasons, the opposite party refused to accept the cheque or the letter and informed the company/transferee that the allotment stood cancelled, but no written confirmation was given by the opposite party to the complainant in this regard. The complainant is still ready and willing to make the payment, but the opposite party is interested to sell the plot to some other party on higher price. Several other persons have also filed complaints against the opposite party. It has also come to light that the opposite party was not even entitled to sell the plots as it has not got approval from the Town Planning Department. The opposite party was not Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 5 entitled to demand any money from the allottees prior to the approval as it was in clear violation of the PAPRA Act. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant suffered lot of mental tension and harassment and is entitled to compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.
8. It was prayed that the opposite party may be directed to allot a plot to the complainant with regard to the booking made by the complainant with respect to his allotment for Customer ID # MPP- 10555, Priority # 127 and the same be transferred in favour of M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and to accept future payments from the said transferee, to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
9. In the written version filed on behalf of the opposite party, preliminary objections were taken that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has concealed the true facts. The application was submitted on behalf of the complainant with the opposite company on 02.06.2005, requesting for offer of allotment of a residential plot, measuring 250 sq.yds. in the future township project of the opposite party and along with the application, a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs was deposited vide cheque dated 02.06.2005 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-11, Rohini. In the application, it was stipulated that the offer of allotment of residential plot in the future scheme of the opposite party shall be made to the complainant within a period of six months from the date of registration and in case, the opposite party is not in a position to make the said offer, a right shall accrue to withdraw the deposited amount alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 6
10. The Govt. of Punjab, with a view to attract new investment in the State, formulated Industrial Policy-2013. Housing and Urban Development were also made the subject of the said policy. The opposite party, with a view to set up a Mega Project in village Ballomajra, Mohali, submitted its proposal to Directorate, Industries and Commerce, Punjab, to develop an area of 160 acres with an investment of over Rs.266.50 Crores and the said proposal was accepted and Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the opposite party on 21.12.2005. After the receipt of Letter of Intent for setting up Mega Housing Project at Mohali, the opposite party considered the application submitted by the complainant and so many others, to get themselves registered with the opposite party for offer of provisional allotment of plots in future scheme of the opposite party. The opposite party issued a letter dated 16.01.2007 to the complainant, making an offer of provisional allotment of residential plot, measuring 250 sq.yds. and he was requested to remit a sum of Rs.1,62,500/-, but the complainant did not make any deposit. The complainant was reminded time and again to make payment through telephonic calls, but he did not respond. The opposite party issued a reminder letter on 11.12.2007 and requested him to make the requisite payment within seven days, but the complainant did not respond. Again, a letter dated 31.01.2008 was issued and he was asked to make payment of Rs.3.50 lacs within 10 days and non-payment within stipulated period shall be treated as his disinterest in the project. The adherence to the payment schedule is necessary as the opposite party company is required to make the payment to the Govt. authorities for EDC in the phased manner and non-payment of EDC can stall the whole project. Despite repeated reminders, the complainant did not deposit the requisite amount with Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 7 the opposite party. Against the demand of Rs.3.50 lacs, a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- was deposited through cheque No.724304 dated 19.03.2008 and the receipt was issued. The said cheque was issued by the company Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
11. In the month of July, 2008, the complainant was in arrears of Rs.3,68,750/- and a letter dated 08.07.2008 was issued, but the complainant did not respond. Upto November, 2008, the complainant was in arrears of Rs.5.75 lacs and a letter dated 01.11.2008 was issued and he was requested to make the said payment within a period of seven days, but no payment was made. It was also pointed out in the said letter that if the complainant is not interested in the registration, the same will be deemed to be cancelled. The complainant did not come alongwith to make the payment and the opposite party was left with no option and the registration of the complainant with regard to the plot in question was cancelled by the opposite party. After cancellation of the registration in 2009, the present complaint for the transfer of rights in favour of the company i.e. Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. is misconceived and is not maintainable.
12. The complainant has not challenged the letter dated 06.08.2009 vide which the registration was cancelled. Without challenging the cancellation letter, no relief can be granted. The cancellation letter with regard to the registration was issued on 06.08.2009 and the same was not challenged within the period of limitation and the complaint is barred by time.
13. The said company i.e. Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of plots, built-up houses, commercial premises and the construction work as well and the said company invested the money and made a benami transaction in the Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 8 name of the complainant. The said transaction is a commercial transaction and the complaint amounts to abuse of the process of law.
14. The complainant is not beneficiary user of the plot in question and he is not a consumer under the Act. The complainant acquired the registration rights in order to earn premium from the open market and the same is a commercial transaction. The various disputed questions are involved and the civil court is competent.
15. On merits, it was submitted that Sh. Amrit Singh is Director of the company Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Earlier, the complaint was filed before the District Forum, Chandigarh and the same prayer was made and now the present complaint is maintained by Sh. Amrit Singh as Special Power of Attorney of Sh. Narender Kumar Jain, who has already lost his registration rights way back in the year 2009. The complainant and the said company is playing hide and seek, while invoking the jurisdiction under the Act. The complainant never submitted any application to the opposite party in order to seek transfer of his rights in favour of Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. during the pendency of the said registration rights. The locus standi of the company was seriously disputed and the said company withdrew the complaint on 30.09.2011. The withdrawal of the said complaint by the said company does not give any right to the complainant to maintain the present complaint before this Commission. The documents, alleged to have been executed between the complainant and Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., were never received by the opposite party. The complainant never came forward with a request to transfer his registration rights in favour of the said company. The documents were got signed without any date and attestation and cannot be relied upon. Other similar pleas as raised in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 9 of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
16. Rejoinder was filed in which the averments of the complaint were reiterated and that of the written version were controverted.
17. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amrit Singh, Special Power of Attorney of the complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
18. Learned counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sanyam Dudeja, Authorized Signatory of the opposite party dated 30.04.2013 Ex.O-A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-19.
19. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
20. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that the complainant booked a plot of 250 sq.yds. and paid Rs.3.50 lacs as registration charges and the opposite party issued receipt Ex.C-2 dated 17.06.2005. The opposite party did not make any allotment nor any plot number was allotted. The complainant transferred the said registration in favour of Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and moved an application Ex.C-3 for transferring the same in its favour. The indemnity bond Ex.C-4 and the undertaking is Ex.C-5, but the transfer was not made. The amount of Rs.1,87,500/- was paid to the opposite party vide cheque Ex.C-6 dated 19.03.2008 and the receipt dated 26.03.2008 was issued by the opposite party. It was contended that despite receiving the above amounts, the allotment was neither made in the name of the complainant Narender Kumar Jain nor the transferee company.
21. It was further contended that Ex.C-8 is the schedule of payment and the payments as per this schedule were to be made from Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 10 the date of launch, but till date no date of launch is declared. It has been further contended that as per letter Ex.C-9, Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. has sent the cheques, making payment of 50% of the plot and EDC charges to the extent of 80%. Letter Ex.C-9A issued by the competent authority under PAPRA, 1995 has informed the public and advised to verify the status of various colonies and projects before making the investment of any kind. It has been further contended that the jurisdiction of this Commission can be invoked as the pecuniary jurisdiction in the present case is more than Rs.20.00 lacs. The opposite party has neither transferred the registration of the plot in question to the attorney of the complainant, nor has allotted any plot so far. The said cancellation letter was not received by the complainant. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment and is entitled to compensation, including litigation expenses. The opposite party may be directed to allot the plot and transfer the booking in favour of M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
22. On behalf of the opposite party, it was contended that vide Annexure R-1, the complainant filled the Advance Registration Form 'TDI Projects' and paid Rs.3.00 lacs for allotment of residential plot of the size of 250 sq.yds. in the future township project. The allotment was to be made on or after six months of the registration, or else the amount can be withdrawn along with interest @ 15% p.a. A reminder was given to the complainant vide Annexure R-2 dated 16th January, 2007 for remitting a sum of Rs.1,62,500/- and even the registration could be transferred after payment of transfer charges @ Rs.100/- per sq.yd., but the complainant did not pay the amount and again vide Annexure R-3, the complainant was reminded to remit an amount of Rs.1,87,500/- for Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 11 getting priority at the time of allotment and same condition for transfer was repeated. Vide letter Annexure R-4 dated 31st January, 2008, the complainant was asked to pay Rs.3.50 lacs within 10 days from the receipt of the letter and in case, the payment is not made, it will be treated as disinterest in the project. It was further argued that vide Annexure R-5, the amount of Rs.1,87,500/- was paid through cheque issued on behalf of Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., but it was not the full payment as demanded earlier. Annexure R-6 is the receipt and vide Annexure R-7 dated 7th July, 2008, again the demand of Rs.3,68,750/- was made and vide Annexure R-8 dated 01.09.2008, the demand of Rs.5.75 lacs was made and it was made clear to the complainant that in case, the payment is not made, then the registration will be deemed as cancelled. Lastly, the registration was cancelled vide Annexure R-9 dated 6th August, 2009 and the offer was made to the complainant, to have refund of the amount deposited.
23. It was further contended that M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh and the complaint is Annexure R-10 and the prayer was to transfer the booking made by the present complainant and to pay the compensation and costs. It has been argued that the said complainant was not maintainable, as the booking amount was neither transferred nor any allotment was made to the said company and the said company was not a consumer and vide Annexure R-11, the said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh complaint.
24. It was further argued that Ex.C-1 is the Special Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Sh. Amrit Singh regarding the said booking amount and the same was irrevocable which Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 12 shows that the complainant Narender Kumar Jain is left with no interest in the booking or the allotment and is not a consumer. It has been argued that the documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 are for transferring the booking amount in the name of Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., but the application Ex.C-3 was never received by the opposite party and the Indemnity Bond and Undertaking Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 respectively are without any date and the same were never received by the opposite party. It was further argued that Annexure R-12 is the letter of Director of Industries & Commerce, Punjab, Chandigarh, written to the opposite party regarding grant of Special Package of Incentives to M/s Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited (Township Project). Ex.R-3 is the notification vide which exemption was granted by the State Govt. It has been argued that various financial institutions, including State Bank of Patiala, IDBI Home Finance Limited and India Bulls vide letters Ex.R-14 to Ex.R-19, have agreed to advance loans to the individuals, interested to take the home loans which prove that the said financial institutions agreed and accepted the approval of the project and agreed to advance loan.
25. It has been further contended that the registration of the complainant was cancelled on 06.08.2009 vide Ex.R-9 and the present complaint has been filed on 15.11.2011 and, as such, it is barred by limitation. The complainant is not a consumer as he has transferred all his rights in favour of Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 were not received by the opposite parties, but the plea of the complainant is that the same were received, so this is a disputed question of fact and needs elaborate evidence and the civil court only can decide the same. The project of the opposite party stands approved and the documents under the RTI Act are not related to the project in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 13 question. Lastly, it has been contended that the complainant has failed to prove its case and the complaint may be dismissed.
26. We have minutely considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other documents placed on the file.
27. The complainant has paid Rs.3.00 lacs to the opposite party vide cheque dated 02.06.2005 as admitted by the opposite party in its written version and this amount was paid on account of booking offer in respect of allotment for Customer ID # MPP-10555, Priority #
127. Later on, a sum of Rs.1,87,500/- was paid vide cheque dated 19.03.2008 issued by the company M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. which is owned by the attorney of the complainant.
29. The argument raised on behalf of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer as no allotment was made, is not tenable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Virender Jain Vs. Alaknanda Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited", JT-2013-9-92, wherein in Para-8(relevant portion), it was observed as follows:-
"In view of the above noted judgments, it must be held that the appellants, who had deposited the installments of price for the flats being constructed by respondent no.1, are covered by the definition of 'consumer' contained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and the contrary view expressed by the National Commission in "B.K. Prabha V. Secretary, Kendriya, Upadyarasanga" (2004) 2 CLT-305, which has been reiterated in the impugned order, is not correct."
30. In another recent judgment in case "M/s Narne Construction P. Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Etc.", 2012 (3) Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 14 R.C.R. (Civil)-127, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Para-6 as follows:-
"This Court further held that when a person applies for allotment of building site or for a flat constructed by development authority and enters into an agreement with the developer or a contractor, the nature of the transaction is covered by the expression 'service' of any description. The housing construction or building activity carried on by a private or statutory body was, therefore, held to be 'service' within the meaning of clause (o) of Section 2 (1) of the Act as it stood prior to the inclusion of the expression 'housing construction' in the definition of 'service' by Ordinance No.24 of 1993."
31. Admittedly, neither any allotment has been made nor the possession of any plot has been delivered. The complainant executed documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 in favour of M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for transferring the said booking in the name of the said company, but the complainant has failed to prove that these documents were submitted to the opposite party. Admittedly, the opposite party has not transferred the said booking in the name of the above company and the said company was not a consumer and for that reason, the complaint filed by the said company before the District Forum, Chandigarh was got dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh complaint as per order Ex.R-11 dated 30th September, 2011. The said complaint was filed in March, 2010.
32. The stand taken by the opposite party is that the complainant has not paid the installments as per the schedule and the letters, including reminders Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4, Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-8 were issued and ultimately, the booking/registration was cancelled vide letter Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 15 Ex.R-9 dated 6th August, 2009. As per the version of the opposite party, the said cancellation was communicated to the complainant, but there is no postal receipt or any acknowledgement signed by the complainant on record to prove the communication. Even in Para-8 of the complaint filed before the District Forum, Chandigarh, copy of which is Ex.R-10, this plea was taken and it was pleaded as follows:-
"8. That however for some strange reasons, the Opposite Party refused to accept the Cheques or the Letter and in fact informed the Complainant that the allotment stood cancelled. However, no written confirmation was given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in this regard."
33. Once the communication/receipt of the cancellation letter is not proved by the opposite party, by leading cogent evidence, it cannot be presumed that the same was communicated. Mere writing of word 'Regd.AD' without placing on file the postal receipt, it cannot be concluded that the cancellation letter was duly served on the complainant.
34. The complainant, in order to get his amount, executed the above documents in favour of in Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., but as discussed above, neither these documents were received by the opposite party nor any receipt thereof by the opposite party has been proved and the complainant has to file the present complaint again through the Special Power of Attorney, who is none else, but the owner of the above company. Due to the technicalities of law, which are not applicable in the consumer cases, the consumer cannot be allowed to suffer because of inaction on the part of the opposite party. Although, the complainant failed to make the payment, yet there is nothing offered Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 16 to him for which a prudent man will keep making the payment. Both the parties have placed on file certain communications regarding the licence issued to the opposite party and the opposite party has placed on file the documents, showing that the various banks and financial institutions agreed to give loan to the members, considering the project to be genuine. In this complaint, the fact remains that despite making payments for booking/registration and later on some other payment on behalf of the complainant, till date nothing has been allotted or given any assurance that the plot will be allotted.
35. The plea of the opposite party that the complaint is time barred cannot be accepted because either the complainant or his attorney has been filing the complaint and the earlier complaint, which was filed before the District Forum, Chandigarh, was withdrawn with liberty to file the fresh complaint and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed. The complainant or his attorney has been pursuing the litigation in good faith and in the absence of any communication regarding cancellation letter, the complaint cannot be said to be time barred. The payments received by the opposite party have been admitted and the opposite party is liable to refund the same to the complainant.
36. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Shanti Kunj Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited & Anr. Vs. Ram Surat Roy (Dr.)", I (2010) CPJ-109 (NC) held in Para-7 as follows:-
"In this case, if has been established that possession of the suit plot was not handed over to the complainant in spite of having paid total consideration of Rs.82,500/-. Accordingly, the cause of action would be continuous cause of action in this case and the belated additional ground taken by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 17 could obviously not be entertained in the facts and circumstances of this case."
37. In Revision Petition No.529 of 2006 "Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam, Bhilai Vs. Rajesh Kumar Shukla", decided on 13.05.2010, the Hon'ble National Commission observed as follows:-
"By retaining this amount of Rs.332/- and also another sum of Rs.500/-, which was deposited by the respondent-complainant in response to a newspaper advertisement, the hope of the respondent-complainant was kept alive. This would constitute a continuous cause of action and, therefore, the objection with regard to complaint being barred by limitation has to be overruled."
38. In case "Shri H.P. Roy Vs. Government of Bihar & Ors.", 2002 (2) Consumer Protection Cases-668, the Hon'ble National Commission observed in concluding Para (relevant portion) as follows:-
"From record, we also see that as early as July, 1984 the complainant requests for refund of the deposited amount, which is reiterated in his letter of May, 1996. Subsequently notices have been issued demanding huge amounts but in our view that has no correlation with the decision on the subject. We find Bihar State Housing Board deficient at least on one point and that is its absolute silence on the request for refund of deposited amount. No house could be allotted to him can be over-looked but not the prayer for refund of his own deposited amount. Keeping in view our own order in HUDA & Ors. Vs. Darsh Kumar Revision Petition No.1197 of 1998, {2001 (2) C.P.C. 635 N.C.} we direct that the OP, Bihar State Housing Board to refund Rs.6,500/- Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 18 along with interest @ 18% from the date of deposit till the date of payment, which must be done within six weeks of this order."
39. In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,87,500/- {Rs.3,00,000/-(Ex.C-2) plus Rs.1,87,500/-(Ex.C-6)} to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2011:-
40. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2011 (Mrs. Shashi Sehgal Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), Briefly stated, the facts are that Complaint No.161 of 2010 "M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd." was filed in the District Consumer Forum Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "the District Forum"), Chandigarh and the same was withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. The complainant had booked a 250 sq.yds., as offered by the opposite party at Mohali. For the registration, the complainant paid Rs.3.50 lacs by way of demand draft and receipt dated 17.06.2005 was issued. For personal reasons, the complainant offered to transfer the said plot to M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Mohali (hereinafter called ' the company') and the complainant executed various documents, such as transfer letter, indemnity bond, undertaking, transferring all his rights in the said plot to the company. This fact was communicated to the opposite party by the original purchaser and the above documents were submitted to M/s In Time Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the said company, on behalf of the complainant, paid a sum of Rs.1,71,250/- to the opposite party vide cheque Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 19 No.724307 dated 19.03.2008 towards payment of the installment which was duly encashed. Vide letter dated 12.01.2010, request to transfer the plot was reiterated and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- was sought to be paid vide cheque No.724325 dated 12.01.2010 towards transfer fee and cheque No.724327 of Rs.12,81,250 lacs as 50% of the cost of the plot with External Development Charges so as to make the total payment equivalent to 80% of the cost. For some strange reasons, the opposite party refused to accept the cheque or the letter and informed the company/transferee that the allotment stood cancelled, but no written confirmation was given by the opposite party to the complainant in this regard.
41. It was prayed that the opposite party may be directed to allot a plot to the complainant with regard to the booking made by the complainant with respect to his allotment for Customer ID # MPP- 10367, Priority # 609 and the same be transferred in favour of M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and to accept future payments from the said transferee, to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
42. The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing written version in the similar lines of its written version as given in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011.
43. The complainant tendered affidavit of her Special Power of Attorney Sh. Amrit Singh as Ex.C-A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
44. The opposite party tendered affidavit of its Authorized Signatory Sh. Sanyam Dudeja Ex.O-A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-19.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 20
45. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 (Narender Kumar Jain Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), the Consumer Complaint No.93 of 2011 (Mrs. Shashi Sehgal Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,21,250/- {Rs.3,50,000/-(Ex.C-2) plus Rs.1,71,250/- (Ex.C6)} to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order. Consumer Complaint No.94 of 2011
46. Similarly, in Consumer Complaint No.94 of 2011 (Mrs. Raj Kumari Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), Briefly stated, the facts are that Complaint No.160 of 2010 "M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd." was filed in the District Consumer Forum Disputes Redressal Forum (in short "the District Forum"), Chandigarh and the same was withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. The complainant had booked a 250 sq.yds., as offered by the opposite party at Mohali. For the registration, the complainant paid Rs.3.50 lacs by way of demand draft and receipt dated 13.07.2005 was issued. For personal reasons, the complainant offered to transfer the said plot to M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Mohali (hereinafter called ' the company') and the complainant executed various documents, such as transfer letter, indemnity bond, undertaking, transferring all his rights in the said plot to the company. This fact was communicated to the opposite party by the original purchaser and the above documents were submitted to M/s In Time Promoters Pvt. Ltd., 9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. In pursuance thereof, the said company, on behalf of the complainant, Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 21 paid a sum of Rs.1,71,250/- to the opposite party vide cheque No.724306 dated 19.03.2008 towards payment of the installment which was duly encashed. Vide letter dated 12.01.2010, request to transfer the plot was reiterated and a further sum of Rs.25,000/- was sought to be paid vide cheque No.724325 dated 12.01.2010 towards transfer fee and cheque No.724328 of Rs.12,81,250 lacs as 50% of the cost of the plot with External Development Charges so as to make the total payment equivalent to 80% of the cost. For some strange reasons, the opposite party refused to accept the cheque or the letter and informed the company/transferee that the allotment stood cancelled, but no written confirmation was given by the opposite party to the complainant in this regard.
47. It was prayed that the opposite party may be directed to allot a plot to the complainant with regard to the booking made by the complainant with respect to his allotment for Customer ID # MPP- 10559, Priority # 610 and the same be transferred in favour of M/s Fateh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and to accept future payments from the said transferee, to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
48. The complaint was contested by the opposite party by filing written version in the similar lines of its written version as given in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011.
49. The complainant tendered affidavit of her Special Power of Attorney Sh. Amrit Singh as Ex.C-A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
50. The opposite party tendered affidavit of its Authorized Signatory Sh. Sanyam Dudeja Ex.O-A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-19.
Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 22
51. In view of the reasons and discussion held in Consumer Complaint No.92 of 2011 (Narender Kumar Jain Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited), the Consumer Complaint No.94 of 2011 (Mrs. Raj Kumari Vs Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited) is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.5,21,250/- {Rs.3,50,000/- (Ex.C-2) plus Rs.1,71,250/- (Ex.C6)} to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
52. The arguments in these complaints were heard on 21.01.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
53. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
54. Copy of the order be placed in:-
Consumer Complaint : Shashi Sehgal Vs. Taneja
No.93 of 2011 Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
Consumer Complaint : Raj Kumari Vs. Taneja
No.94 of 2011 Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Judicial Member
(Jasbir Singh Gill)
Member
January 31, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)