Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. Harjinder Singh, Advocate For opposite party No.1: Sh. Manik Garg, Advocate For opposite party No.2: Ex parte For opposite party No.3: Sh. Mashwinder Singh, Advocate. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
The complainant has filed this complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. Brief facts, as set out in the complaint, are that the complainant has retired as Principal from "Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College", Jhar Sahib, Samrala, District Ludhiana, which is being run and managed by SGPC, Amritsar, on 31.08.2015 and thereafter she planned to have her own residential house. Opposite party No.1 is carrying on the business of construction of flats and other housing project, through opposite party No.2, as a franchise of opposite party No.3. They, in order to attract the public to invest in their project, advertised through media and newspapers to give possession of the flat within 18 months from the date of booking. Being allured by their said advertisement, the complainant booked and purchased a flat in Unit No.1, Block-G at Ground Floor, having super area measuring 1350 sq.ft. and 300 sq.ft. lawn, from the opposite parties on 18.11.2012, for which agreement dated 19.05.2014 was executed between the parties. The opposite parties had falsely represented at that time that the entire project has been approved by GLADA. In fact, their project was approved by GLADA in June, 2014. By misrepresentation and cheating, they got deposited the whole sale price of the flat, in question, from the complainant i.e. ₹30,78,000/-, against receipts upto January, 2013. The complainant took loan of ₹20,00,000/-from the Bank, so as make the payment of the flat and she has been paying interest on the said loan amount. The opposite parties failed to complete the construction work within the agreed period, what to talk of delivering possession of the flat. It was further pleaded that the area of the flat as well as the area of the park/greenery/lawn was less than that of as shown in agreement. The opposite parties further forced the complainant to sign fresh agreement and threatened to usurp the amount deposited by her. They also refused to return the hard earned money deposited by the complainant with them. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, by not handing over the possession of the flat, in dispute, within the agreed period, the complainant has been forced to live in a rented house. The complainant served legal notice, asking the opposite parties to return double the amount deposited, but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainant has sought the following directions to the opposite parties: