Delhi

East Delhi

CC/602/2015

RAMESH KTANDON - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMI PRABHU - Opp.Party(s)

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 602/15

 

Shri Ramesh Kumar Tandon

S/o Shri Raj Kumar Tandon

R/o RZ-33, Sitapur

Dabri, New Delhi – 110 045                                                    ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. AMI Prabhu Developers Pvt. Ltd.

(Through Director/Partner/Auth. Signatory)

303, Gupta Arcade

Local Shopping Centre

Mayur Vihar Phase – I

Delhi – 110 091

 

2. M/s. AMI Prabhu Developers Pvt. Ltd.

1170, Sector-2

Bahadurgarh, Haryana                                                                     ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 08.09.2015

Judgment Reserved on:25.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 02.12.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ramesh Kumar Tandon has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s. AMI Prabhu Developers Pvt. Ltd. (OP) for deficiency of services.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant agreed to buy a unit in the housing project of OPs by paying an initial amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-vide cheque no. 588019 dated 27.08.2013.  The balance was to be paid as per the progress in construction.  In the month of March, 2012, the complainant received a demand notice from OPs asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards another installment.  When the complainant visited the site, he came to know that there was no progress with regard to the construction work and he decided not to part with any more money.  He wrote a letter of dated 18.05.2015 requesting to indicate the progress in construction work.  However, the company did not reply.  From this conduct of the company, the complainant has informed that the company had no intention to fulfill its obligation of offering possession by the committed date.  Thus, it has been stated that these acts of OPs have caused deficiency in service and have prayed for refund of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 24%; compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-  towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.        Respondents appeared but did not file any reply.  During the course of proceedings, they stopped from appearing, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  From the testimony of the complainant which has gone unrebutted and the documents such as Annexure-A and subsequent Annex. F, wherein it has been stated that the possession was to be given within a period of 2 years from 2013, it is evident that the complainants have booked a flat, the possession of which has not been handed over within the prescribed period.  The fact that possession has not been handed over within the stipulated period, certainly, there has been deficiency on the part of OPs.  When there is deficiency on the part of OPs, they are liable to refund the booking amount.  Therefore, we order that the complainants be refunded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint.  The awarded amount be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filling the complaint till realisation.         

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

          President