JUDGMENT

Raj Shekhar Attri, President.—Feeling aggrieved by order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.248 of 2020 filed by them has been dismissed, the complainants have come up in this appeal.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal, as narrated in the impugned order, are given hereunder:-

“….. complainants applied for allotment of a residential flat in the upcoming project of the OPs namely Trinity Homes at Landran-Banur Road, Mohali, for their personal use. The total value of the flat was Rs.13,40,000/- and the OPs gave discount to the complainants if the entire sum was deposited in lump sum. Accordingly, the complainants deposited Rs.4,50,000/- on 31.1.2013 and Rs.6,50,000/- on 1.2.2013. Thereafter, vide letter dated 8.3.2013, OPs provisionally allotted a 2BHK flat, first floor, measuring 610 sq. ft. to the complainants in the above mentioned project. However, the OPs got the sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, SAS Nagar, Mohali for Rs.3,70,000/- only wherein the area was mentioned as 535 sq.ft., although they had taken the total sum of Rs.11,00,000/-. The complainants alleged OPs had not obtained the necessary permissions from the competent authorities and even failed to provide the basic amenities at site. Left with no alternative, the complainants requested the OPs for refund of the amount paid, but to no avail. The complainants alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the amount alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation. ..…”

3. Since, despite deemed service, none had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties, as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.03.2021.

4. The appellants/complainants led evidence in support of their case before the District Commission. However, the District Commission after hearing counsel for the appellants/complainants and going through the material available on record, dismissed the consumer complaint, while holding as under:-

“….We are of the view that the present sale deed was executed with the agreement of both the parties and the sale deed clearly mentioned that the flat in question was free from all sorts of encumbrances and the complainants were duly aware of the facts of the above sale deed. More so, the sale deed even today is standing in the name of complainant No.2 and the same has not been cancelled, therefore, the order of refund of the amount, as prayed for by the complainants, cannot be passed by this Commission.

So far as the allegation of the complainants with regard to not taking the requisite permissions by the OPs from the concerned authorities and lack of basic amenities at site is concerned, the complainants have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove the same. The photographs (Annexure C-4) annexed by the complainants do not show the date when the same were clicked. These photographs even do not anywhere show that they actually relate to the project/flat in question.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs….”

5. Hence this appeal.

6. Alongwith this appeal, miscellaneous application bearing no. 467 of 2021 has also been filed by the appellants, for placing on record photographs of the project site, Annexure A-2. Reply to this application has not been filed by the respondents inspite of fact that adequate opportunities have been given for that purpose.

7. We have heard the contesting parties on this application and are of the considered opinion that the additional documents i.e. photographs (Annexure A-2), sought to be placed on record are material one, and reliance can also be placed thereon, to come to