Back
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President, Ms. Heena Thakkar, Mr. D.K. Poddar and Mr. Narendra Gupta, Members
NIRMALA DEVI CHIMNANI - Appellant
Versus
AMISHA IN SKY CREATIONS - Respondent
Complaint Case No. 37 of 2015
Decided on : 11-01-2016
Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate, for the Complainant; Mr. Sudeep Tiwari, Advocate, for the Opposite Parties
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of consumers to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, and the obligation of the OPs to fulfill their commitments made in advertisements and brochures.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Section 17 - [Golden Tower Project, Consumer Protection Act, 1986] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically Section 17, and highlighted the complainant's rights to seek reliefs for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The court emphasized the complainant's entitlement to refund and compensation for mental agony, and the OPs' obligation to fulfill their promises and commitments made in the advertisement and brochures.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant booked a flat in the Golden Tower project and paid a substantial amount to the OPs. The OPs failed to provide the promised flat and sold the allotted flat to another person without prior intimation to the complainant. The OPs demanded additional payment and refused to refund the amount deposited by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the OPs committed deficiency in service by not fulfilling their obligations and by selling the allotted flat to another person without informing the complainant. The court also found that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the deposited amount along with interest and compensation for mental agony.
Issues: The issues revolved around the OPs' failure to provide the promised flat, demand for additional payment, and selling the allotted flat to another person without prior intimation to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the OPs' actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, entitling the complainant to a refund of the deposited amount, interest, and compensation for mental agony.
Final Decision: The court directed the OPs to refund the deposited amount with interest, and awarded compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation to the complainant.
ORDER
Mr. Justice R.S. Sharma, President.—The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs, seeking following reliefs:
(a) To direct the OPs to obtain the remaining cost of the flat and provide 2 B.H.K. Flat in First Floor, Golden Tower to the complainant
OR
To refund a sum of Rs. 12,05,000 (Rs. Twelve Lakhs Five Thousand) to the complainant, which was deposited by the complainant with OPs for Block No. D-l-A, First Floor, Golden Tower, along with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of deposit till date of payment.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakhs) to the complainant towards compensation for inconvenience suffered by her as well as financial loss.
(c) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh) towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(d) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) towards cost of litigation and Advocate fees to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the OPs have jointly launched a residential project namely "Golden Tower" at Amlidih, Raipur (C.G.) and advertised the same. Under the above scheme total 421 flats in 16 apartment were proposed to be constructed. The OPs published attractive brochure in which modem facilities to be provided to the customers is mentioned. The OPs to attract the costumers fixed payment schedule and kept prize scheme under which the winner has to be given Honda City Car, Maruti Zen Astilo Car, Two Wheelers, Jewellery, TV. and air conditioner. The complainant influenced with the scheme of the OPs to provide a modem and having all facility flat at the cost of Rs. 12,71,000 and decided to join the scheme therefore, on 15.10.2008, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000 as per payment schedule and booked Flat No. 104 at Block No. D-l-A, First Floor, Golden Tower under which it was agreed by both the parties the complainant will regularly pay the instalments and after payment of all the instalments, she will obtain Flat No. 104 at Block No. D-l-A, First Floor, Golden Tower for which the OPs provided token No. 221 to the complainant. The receipts were issued in favour of the complainant by mentioning above token number. From 15.10.2008 to 4.4.2013, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 12,05,000 to the OPs as per terms and conditions agreed. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to receive remaining amount of Rs. 66,000 and to register the flat in the name of the complainant. The OPs informed the complainant that before getting the flat registered in her name she is required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,32,800. On asking to the OPs, the complainant was informed that the actual cost of the flat is Rs. 12,71,000 + extra area charge Rs. 1,16,800, for electricity connection Rs. 30,000, for car parking Rs. 20,000 thus a sum of Rs. 14,37,800 out of which the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 12,05,000 therefore the balance amount of Rs. 2,32,800 is required to be paid by her. On being objection raised by the complainant regarding recovery of the above the O.P. No. 1 told that actually the operation of the project is done by the O.P. No. 2 therefore, the complainant should discuss about the above objection to the O.P. No. 2 The complainant informed the OPs that the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,16,800 is not proper and is illegal The OPs told the complainant that the above amount is being taken from all flat holders therefore, the complainant is also required to pay the above amount. The complainant requested the OPs to reconsider their decision, but the OPs did not receive any reply from the OPs for many months. The complainant again contacted the OPs personally and requested to receive the agreed amount and register the flat in her name but the OPs avoided her request. The OPs assured the complainant to provide flat at the earliest for about VA years, but the OPs did not give any rep
