Laxman Singh vs M/S. Ramprastha Sare Relity Pvt. Ltd.

R.K. Agrawal, President

Sometime in the year 2012, a residential Project, christened as "Crescent ParC-Petioles", was being developed by M/s Ramprastha Sare Realty Pvt. Ltd., the sole Opposite Party herein, at Village Wazirpur and Mewaka in Sector-92, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Pursuant to the representation made to the Complainant by the Opposite Party that a Type 4BHK Flat, No. P050201, Building No. P05, having super area of 189.52 sq. meters, "Green ParC-2" in the Project, would be allotted to him, the Complainant applied for the flat on 26.05.2012. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7,75,000/- towards allotment of the flat vide cheque no. 003106 dated 26.05.2012. The Complainant paid further sums of Rs.53,646/- and Rs.8,46,647/- vide cheques dated 07.07.2012 and 12.10.2012 respectively. Insofar as first two payments of Rs.7,75,000/- and Rs.53,646/- are concerned, the receipts duly issued by the Opposite Party are placed on record as Annexures C-2 and C-3 respectively. However, the Opposite Party did not issue any receipt towards the payment of Rs.8,46,647/-. In connection with the said transaction, the Complainant has filed a copy of the account statement (Annexure C-4), issued by Canara Bank, Badshahpur, which shows the deduction of the said amount from the account of the Complainant. In this way, the Complainant has paid a total amount of Rs.16,75,293/- to the Opposite Party.

It is averred in the Complaint that the Opposite Party got the signatures of the Complainant (an uneducated person) on a blank document, which was the Flat Buyer Agreement, and did not explain its contents to him. Further, the Opposite Party neither made any communication to the Complainant nor apprised him about the status of the Project. Raising his concerns, in the month of July, 2014 the Complainant met the Directors and higher officials of the Opposite Party, who assured him that the amount so deposited would be refunded with interest and the booking would be deemed cancelled. However, instead of refunding the amount, the Opposite Party made a demand of Rs.17,82,233/-. It is pleaded that the Flat Buyer Agreement was not signed by both the parties and there was no concluded contract between them. The Complainant time and again requested the Opposite Party for refunding the amount with interest but there was no response to the request made.

In the said background, initially the Complainant preferred a Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum), wherein both the parties were represented. On an objection taken by the Opposite Party to the effect that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint, the District Forum vide its order dated 29.05.2017 dismissed the Complaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Hence, the present Complaint, wherein the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund the amount of Rs.16,75,293/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of booking, i.e. 26.05.2012, till repayment, as also pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs.

Vide order dated 12.09.2018, while issuing notice to the Opposite Party for 12.11.2018, the Complainant was also permitted to serve the Opposite Party by dasti notice. As per the proof of service, filed by the Complainant, dasti notice had been served on the Opposite Party. On 12.11.2018 nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and, in view of the prayer made by the Complainant, the matter was posted for 15.01.2019. On 15.01.2019 also nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party nor had any Written Version been filed on its behalf. Accordingly, vide order passed on the said date (15.01.2019), the Opposite Party was directed to be proceeded against ex-parte.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the material available on record, including the evidence adduced by the Complainant.

It may be mentioned here that the allegations levelled against the Opposite Party remain unrebutted as, despite service, neither there is any representation on behalf of the Opposite Party nor has it filed any Written Version, denying the allegations levelled against it and vide Order dated 15.01.2019, the matter was directed to be proceeded ex parte.

The learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that after receiving an amount of Rs.16,75,293/- between the period 26.05.2012 and 12.10.2012, the Opposite Party did not issue any demand letter till mid 2014 nor communicated/apprised him of the status of the Project, wherein he had booked the flat in question. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, he was told to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- approximately for non-payment. Vide his letter dated 14.07.2014, the Complainant sought for refund of the amount deposited with interest and in not refunding the same so far, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

As the Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.16,75,293/- on different dates and the basic sale price of the flat in question was Rs.75,37,800/-, as indicated in the application made by the Complainant at the time of booking, certainly, he was required to pay the remaining sale consideration as also other charges to the Opposite Party. From the material on record, it seems that the remaining sale consideration and other charges were to be paid on different occasions because had it been payable in one go, the same would have already been paid by the Complainant and he would have been waiting for the possession of the flat, which is not the case here. As the Complainant had made a part-payment, the Opposite Party was required to inform him about the status of the project from time to time and issue demand letters accordingly. For about one year and nine months from 12.10.2012, when the Complainant had made last payment of Rs.8,46,647/-, the Opposite Party did not take any steps in this behalf and it was only in July, 2014 that the Complainant was intimated that a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- approximately was required to be paid. When the Opposite Party itself did not issue any demand letters earlier, it was not justified to ask for said payment in one go. In such a situation, the Complainant was not at fault and perturbed with the attitude of the Opposite Party sought for refund of the amount deposited, vide his letter dated 14.07.2014, which has not been made by the Opposite Party so far. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in not refunding the amount deposited by the Complainant.

In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Complaint deserves to be allowed in part with some reasonable compensation. In my considered opinion, interest @ 18% p.a. sought for by the Complainant is on higher side and compensation to be computed by applying simple interest @ 10% p.a. would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the Opposite Party to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs.16,75,293/-, along with compensation @ 10% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party would pay compensation @ 12% p.a. for the said period. The Opposite Party shall also pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs.