Delhi

North East

CC/272/2014

Suresh Ram Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adarsh Properties & Builders - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: (NE)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR,

NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.272/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	1	Shri Suresh Ram Gupta S/o Late Shri Vishwa Nath Sahu R/o H.No. C-2/72, Lal Mandir 25 Feet Road, Harsh Vihar, Delhi-93
	2	Shri Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Sagar Gupta, R/o316/396, Shiv Puri, West Sagar Pur Delhi		Complainant
		Versus
	1	M/s Adarsh Properties & Builders D-1, Budha Bazar Chowk, before Bank Colony, Harsh Vihar, Mandoli, Delhi-110093
	2	M/s. Luxmi Narayan Properties Through Proprietor Ramesh Chand Khurana S/o late Shri Puran Chand A-3/46, Gali No. 18, Harsh Vihar Delhi-110093
	3	Shri Satish Chand S/o Shri Bal Kishan B-64-A, Gali No. 15 Jagat Puri Extension, Delhi-110093		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		21-07-2014
			DATE OF DECISION      :		28-04-2016

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President:-

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member:-

Ms Manju Bala Sharma, Member:-

 

Order

1. As per the complaint OP1 & OP2 are in the business of setting up and developing of residential plots etc and OP3 is said to be the owner of plot in question measuring 60 sq. yds. out of Khasra No. 19/24, 19/25 Village Mandoli, Delhi in the abadi of Harsh Vihar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-93. On the representation of OPs complainant entered into an agreement dated 1.12.2012 for purchase of said plot and paid Rs. 3,00,000/-, to OP3/ Shri Satish Chand the so called owner of plot in front of Shri Shiv Nandan and Shri Ramesh Chand Khurana, towards earnest money. Remaining Rs. 27,00,000/- was to be paid, after completion of all development works as promised, on 7.3.2013
2. Out of curiously in the 1^st week of February 2013 complainant went to see the development of the plot where he was shocked to know that there was no development and even boundary wall was not constructed over the plot. Complainant, a number of times asked OPs to adhere to the promises made by them for the development in the plot. But all in vain. Findings this misrepresentation, negligence and unfair trade practice and that OP-3 has no clear title of the plot in question, complainant demanded his money back. OPs assured to sort out the matter but despite repeated requests and personal visits they did not respond. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 30.5.2014 but with no response. Pleading deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant has prayed for award of Rs. 3,00,000/-towards advance paid with 24% p.a. interest thereon, beside Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. All the OPs were served. OP1 and OP2 by filing their reply acknowledged the agreement dated 1.12.2012 and payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to OP3 the owner of the plot, further submitting that they only assured to develop boundary wall on the plot against payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the complainant to them. But complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- only. They further affirmed to develop boundary wall if complainant pays complete amount of Rs. 50,000/-. There is no misrepresentation, negligence or unfair trade practice on their part and they are not liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant.  
4. OP3 by filing its reply specifically denied the agreement dated 1.12.2012 alleging the same as forged and fabricated, hence not admissible in law. He is an illiterate person, cannot read, write or sign. Alleged agreement was never executed by him. Notice dated 30.5.2014 allegedly sent by the complainant was never received by him. Further submitting that he had received a notice, dated 28.5.13 on behalf of  OP2 in respect of the plot in question, alleging execution of agreement in question which was replied on 1.7.2013  and another notice from complainant No-2 dated 22.4.2013 which was replied by him on 1.5.2013. He was also called by P.S. Harsh Vihar, Delhi where he was pressurized to mark his thumb impression on various documents to which he has no knowledge. Infact the property is in the name of his wife and OP1 and OP2 the land grabber, want to grab his property. He has neither executed any agreement nor received alleged money. Complaint is based on fraud and concealment of material facts. Complainant is neither the consumer nor this forum has jurisdiction to entertain present complaint and the remedy, if any, is available only in Civil Courts by way of suit for specific performance of contract under section 41 of Specific Relief Act.  Complaint is false, malafide made is collusionion with OP1 & OP2 just to grab the property of OP3. 
5. Complainant by way of rejoinder to reply of OP1 & OP2 confirmed non-payment of Rs. 40,000/- stating that as he was not given possession of the plot he did not pay the complete amount. Further stating that it was OP1 & OP2 only who introduced him to OP3 and denied that OP1 & OP2 didn’t know about the dealing between complainant and OP3 and reiterated all the contentions of complaint.
6. In rejoinder to reply of OP3 complainant states that it is false that agreement was not executed between him and OP3 and reaffirmed the contents of complaint.
7. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence and alongwith documents.
8. Heard & perused the record.
9. Facts of the case show that complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lac only) for purchase of plot in question as advance against cost of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lac only), alleged by OP3. At the time of payment alleged Iqrarnama was also executed. In the deal, OP1 & OP2 participated as middlemen and signed as witness and admitted that the plot in question belongs to OP3 but in the name of wife of OP3. Thus, Iqrarnama is admitted by OP1 & OP2 but OP3 vehemently denied any alleged agreement and execution of Iqrarnama, specifically stating that he being an illiterate person can not write, read or even sign. He don’t even know the complainant. He is not owner of the plot. Admission by OP1 & OP2 that there was an agreement to sell though between complainant and OP3 and of the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) by them for constructing of wall on the plot in question shows that complainant’s contentions are true. Contentions of OP3 that he can’t even sign, even if taken as true, is not material as the Iqrarnama has thumb impression and is not signed. To prove, that the thumb impression is of OP3 himself, proper investigation is required. Even then, if it is presumed that the thumb impression is of OP3, it is to be considered as to what is the sanctity of this Iqrarnama under the law for the time being inforce particularly in the scenario when the executent thereof is not the owner of the plot in question. In case OP3 being not owner of the plot in question executed this Iqrarnama, it is a cheating and fraud committed by him in collusion with OP1 & OP2. Even otherwise if iqrarnama is considered valid, it is a case of specific performance of contract and not of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. To prove cheating, fraud and enforceability of agreement an elaborate examination, cross examination and investigation is required which is not permissible in summary procedure of this Forum.
10. Consequently, we are of the view that neither the subject of the complaint relates to a consumer case under Consumer Protection Act nor this Forum has jurisdiction and power to entertain investigate and decide the present case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to complainant to refile the same before appropriate Court.
11. File be consigned to record room.
12. Announced on  28.04.2016           

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member

(Manju Bala Sharma) Member