Adjudicating Authority: Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow
In the matter of:
Sangeeta Maurya versus Proplarity Homes Private Limited- Complaint Case No. 351 of 2016
Before: Honourable Mr. Justice Akhtar Hussain Khan, President
The Complainant had paid part consideration of Rs. 7,14,578 to the Respondent Company in order to purchase a unit at the development site which was being developed by the Respondent. The Respondent failed to develop the unit and on the other hand the Respondent changed the unit for which the Complainant had paid the consideration. Complainant filed a complaint on the grounds of deficiency in services and goods- Respondents were summoned, but never replied to the complaint. The complaint case got disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
1. Respondent failed to develop the unit which was promised by the Respondent itself
2. Respondent failed to give possession of the unit to the Complainant within time.
3. Respondent denied refunding of the amount paid by the Complainant
4. Respondent without taking the consent of the Complainant had altered the unit for which the consideration was paid.
Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the Respondent Company is directed to pay the consideration deposited by the complainant, a sum of Rs. 7,14,578 with an interest of 9% per annum on the principal amount which is to be calculated from the date of filing of the Complaint Case. The Respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 to the Complainant as against the legal expenses.
The honourable State Commission gave immense opportunity to the Respondent following the principles of Natural Justice but indeed the Respondent never turned-up. Thereby the honourable State Commission after following the due process of law and after hearing the final arguments from the learned counsel of the complainant had passed a judgment in favour of the complainant. The State Commission considered that the Respondent was guilty of deficiency in services and being the consumer of such deficient services the complainant contained all the right to receive appropriate compensation from the Respondent.
The matter related to a dispute between the builder and the buyer prior to the enforcement of RERA laws and therefore, the State Commission was the appropriate forum for dispute redressal. The State Commission found the deficiency in the Services on the part of the Respondent and had passed an appropriate remedy for the same.