Delhi

East Delhi

CC/911/2012

NEERU PARSHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

AERENS JAI REALTY - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                 CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.911/12
 

Smt. NEERU PARASHER

W/O Sh. S. PARASHER

G-194 A, G.T.B. ENCLAVE, DELHI-110093

Complainant

 

Vs

M/S AERENS JAI REALTY PVT. LTD.

(FORMERLY AERENS BUILDERS (P) Ltd)

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Mr. KAILASH JAI AEREN

1411,CHIRANJIV TOWER, 43, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI-110019

 

ALSO AT:

AERENS ESTATE, MALL ROAD

BEHIND POCKET D-3, VASANT KUNJ

NEW DELHI-110070                       

 

Opposite Party

 

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 12/12/2012

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 28/01/2016

ORDER

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant got interested in the project of the Respondent in Arens Jai city in Sector 24 Jagadhari Yamuna Nagar, Haryana and he made a payment of Rs.2,70,000/- which was acknowledged by Respondent on 31/05/2005. On 22/08/2006 the Respondent raised the rate to 350 per sq yard and demanded Rs.2,46,600/-on 28/08/2006. They also informed that the plot size has been reduced to 340 sq. yards. On 18/05/2007 they demanded money for J-24 and he paid Rs.2,54,458/- vide cheque No. 676316. On 31/10/2007 again they asked for the payment of Rs.2,176,855/-, he visited the office of the Respondent. He was informed that the amount which he has deposited on 17/07/2007 wrongly being credited into some other account. Again they sent the letter dated 09/05/2008 calling the further payment of Rs.2,17,855/-, again he visited the office of the Respondent. They told him that they could not rectify the mistake. Nothing was heard from the Respondent when he checked with the Respondent he found that the plot was cancelled. The Respondent could not give any cogent reason for the cancellation of the plot they have not completed the project in time which amount to deficiency in service. He has prayed for the direction to restore the plot and compensation @ of 24% on the amount deposited and Rs.1 lac for harassment and compensation etc.

            Respondent filed their reply wherein they challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. They also take the plea of limitation. The Complainant committed the default in making the payment despite repeated demand by the Respondent. The cause of action has arisen in May 2008 and the complaint has been filed in 2012 which is barred of limitation. The booking of the plot is admitted, the sale price of the plot was Rs.13,94,000/- and the Complainant has only paid a small amount of Rs.2,17,900/- which was demanded vide letter dated 24/09/2006. The Government of Haryana increased the statutory charges, information was given on 22/08/2006. The basic sale price of the plot thus was increased to Rs.17,70,550/- and accordingly he was asked to deposit vide letter dated 18/05/2009, the sum of Rs.2,17,855/- as per the payment plan. She was supposed to pay Rs.9,60,203/- by 31/10/2007 but she has only paid sum of Rs.7,42,348/- and balance of Rs.2,17,855/- were not paid. On 09/05.2008, Complainant was informed, if this amount has not paid within 10 days of issuance of this letter money deposited shall be forfeited and booking may be cancelled. The Complainant is bound by the terms and condition of the allotment.

            Both the parties filed their evidence.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The Respondent has raised two legal pleas one is related to territorial jurisdiction and other with regard to limitation. The Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the Respondent office is located at Chiranjeev Tower Nehru Place Delhi and the transactions with the Respondent have taken the plea from their office at Delhi and they were also communicated at Delhi, as such the Forum at Delhi have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. Annexure 6 of the application form which shows that the application was submitted at Delhi and the allotment of this plot was also made in Delhi. On the other hand it is the arguments of the Respondent that the plot in question is located in Jagadhari Yamuna Nagar Haryana, as such the Forum in Jagadhari shall only have the Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. We don’t find any substance in the submission of the Respondent Counsel. When the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and the entire transaction has taken place in Delhi, the mere location of the project will not debar the Forum at Delhi from taking cognizance of complaint.

            In so for as, question of limitation is concerned, admittedly it is clear from the Annexure 6 that on 13/03/2008 the fresh allotment was made of all the plots of which the area was 340 sq yard, this too was made in Delhi. This complaint has been filed in 2012. It is the case of the Respondent that they have informed the Complainant regarding the Haryana Government decision to increase the charges like license fee CLU etc and they demanded thereafter the increased amount. The Complainant have filed letter dated 22/08/2006 along with the complaint acknowledging the letter written by the Respondent along with payment plan which says that in case of the time limiting installment plan “alottee has to pay within 50 days of the launch 35% lumsum amount and first installment within 4 months of the launch and 10% after 7 month and so on”. The letter dated May 18/2007 makes it clear that by that date actual development have not commenced. Through this letter they have demanded the first installments, the first installment could only have been asked within 4 months of the launch. When they have not started the project how this installment can be asked to be deposited. The Respondent has not explained how they can ask for the installment. There is nothing on record filed on behalf of the Respondent that the project in question was ever launched and when the actual construction started. The documents filed along with written statement and affidavits are silent on these issues. The letter dated 31/11/2007 for the first time mentioned that the project being developed and they are hopefully to complete the project in time but that letter also does not disclosed when they started the project and when they are going to complete the project. In these circumstances when they have not intimated the Complainant the date of starting the project development how they can demand the first installment and how they can cancel the allotment of the Complainant. The entire exercises under taken by the Respondent shows that the project was not at started. In these circumstances the Complainant shall to have continue the cause of action as against the Respondent. The plea of limitation in the above circumstances is devoid of any substance and has no force.  

            The rejection of the allotment can only be done when the Complainant has not observed the payment plan. In the present case when the actual date of the launch of project and construction has never been intimated to the complainant. It is for the Respondent to explain how the allotment of the Complainant could be cancelled. The cancellation of the allotment is thus arbitrary and illegal which deserves to be set aside. The Respondent has collected the money and have not started the project. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent.

We allow this complaint. The Respondent is directed to restore back the allotment of the Complainant and intimate the same to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of service of service of this order. The Complainant shall deposit the remaining balance amount if the construction at the site has actually started. The further installment shall be subject to the said construction of the project and if the project has not started yet then the Respondent shall refund to the Complainant the entire amount deposited by him along with 12% interest thereon from the date of the deposit of the amount till it is finally paid. The Complainant has suffered because of illegal cancellation of the allotment. He was harassed, causing him mental pain & agony. We award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- which shall include the cost of litigation. let all the amount be paid within 45 days, if not paid Complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest on this amount till paid.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT