| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No:358/2016 Sh. RajneeshArora R/o 772, Bedok Reservoir Road Number 13-09, Waterfront Key Condo Singapore 479251. Also at: 152, Tower 2-B, Wellington Estate-II DLF Phase V, Gurgaon-122016. …..COMPLAINANT Vs. ADEL Landmarks Limited (Formerly known as ERA Landmarks Limited) Having its registered office at: B-39, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (West) New Delhi-110065. …..RESPONDENTS Date of Institution-21.11.2016 Date of Order- 30.08.2024 O R D E R RITU GARODIA-MEMBER - The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP.
- Facts as stated in complaint are that the OP allotted a 3 BHK residential apartment being unit No.GGN/Sec-86/309, Gurgaon, admeasuring 1590 Sq.ft in the name of Mrs. Premila Singh after receiving a payment of Rs. 8,17,260/-
- The complainant made a payment of Rs.8,17,260/- to the said Ms. Premila Singh. In pursuant to the request for nomination by Mrs. Premila Singh, OP duly attorned and confirmed the nomination of the complainant to the said allotment vide letter dated 20.03.2012 in favour of complaint. Thereafter, the complainant became the nominee/beneficiary of the said property, and hence a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
- OP vide letter dated 12.10.2012 called upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,04,315/- to top up the advance amount to 25% of the basic selling price. However, by the time the complainant received the letter dated 12.10.2012 and approached the OP, he was informed that the allotment has already been made and the complainant would have to wait for fresh set of allotment. The complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 16.09.2014 issued by OP intimating that no allotment of 3 BHK apartment would be made and OP would be refunding the amount received alongwith interest to the complainant.
- The complainant did not receive any refund and sent a legal notice dated 05.01.2015. The OP vide letter dated 18.02.2016 offered to refund an amount of Rs.1,23,000/-.
- The complainant prays for refund for Rs.8,17,000/- alongwith interest @18%, or in the alternative possession and allotment of a 3 BHK unit no.GGN/Sec-86/309 at Gurgaon-Sector-86. The complainant also prays for compensation.
- Notice was issued to OP who failed to appear before the Commission. OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.05.2017.
- The complainant filed the evidence in form of affidavit and exhibited the following:
- Copy of payment and acknowledgement is exhibited as Exhibit P-1.
- Copy of written request for change of nomination is exhibited as Exhibit P-2.
- Copy of written confirmation is exhibited as Exhibit P-3.
- Copy of remittance receipt is exhibited as Exhibit P-4.
- Copy of letters is exhibited as Exhibit P-5 & 6.
- Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit P-7.
- Copy of letter dated 18.02.2016 is exhibited as Exhibit P-8.
- The Commission has perused the documents on record. The receipt dated 18.07.2011 and 30.08.2011 shows that OP has received Rs.8,17,260/- from Ms. Premila Singh as payment in respect of Unit No.GGN/Sec-86/309 at Gurgaon-Sector-86.
- Ms. Premila Singh has sent a letter of nomination dated 12.02.2012 to OP requesting them to substitute and assign the name of the complainant, Mr. Rajneesh Arora, against her registration. The said letter also states that she has received Rs.8,17,260/- from the complainant. She also requests OP to make any future demand of payment to the complainant. The payment details made toy Ms. Premila Singh by the complainant have been placed on record.
- OP vide letter dated 20.03.2011 to the complainant confirmed the nomination and substitution. Relevant portion is as follows:
Sub: Confirmation of substitution of name in Advance Registration No.-GGN/Sec-86/309, in, Sector-86, Gurgaon. Dear Sir/Madam This is with reference to the documents submitted by you and Mrs. Premila Singh regarding substitution of name. We further confirm that your name has been update in our record in place of Mrs. Premila Singh against Advance Registration No.-GGN/Sec-86/309. - OP, vide letter dated 12.10.2012 to the complainant, demanded an amount of Rs.2,35,882/-. OP vide letter dated 16.09.2014 cancelled the allotment in the following manner:
This has reference to investment you have made with us against above captioned registration number. We would like to inform you that we will not be holding this investment forward and would be returning the amount received from you alongwith due interest. - OP vide letter dated 18.02.2016 intimated the complainant that Rs.1,23,000/- can be refunded.
- Thus, it is clear that the complainant has paid Rs.8,17,260/- to Ms. Premila Singh who was the allottee of OP. OP substituted the name of the complainant in place of Ms. Premila Singh against registration of Unit No.GGN/Sec-86/309 at Gurgaon-Sector-86. OP vide letter dated 18.02.2016 was ready to refund Rs.1,23,000/-. The complainant has not received possession till date.
- It is evident that the complainant has paid Rs.8,17,260/- and has not received possession till date. OP has failed to appear to rebut this contention. The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure V/s Trevor D’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation.
- Hence, we find OP guilty of deficiency in service in not giving the possession of flat and direct OP to refund Rs.8,17,260/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment till realization alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for metal agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.
- Order to be complied within 30 days. Order to be uploaded and file be consigned to record room.
| |
