Delhi

East Delhi

CC/252/2016

BHAGWAT SWAROOP - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMRAPALI DREAM - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  252/16

 

Shri Bhagwat Swaroop Sharma

S/o Late Shri Budh Ram Sharma

R/o H. No. 1871/139

Plot No. Old 263

2^nd floor, Street No. 139

Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar

Delhi – 110 035                                                                    ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: 307, 3^rd Fllor, Nipun Towers

Plot No. 15, Community Centre

Karkardooma, Delhi – 110 092

Through its Director                                                        …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 16.05.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 25.10.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.10.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Bhagwat Swaroop Sharma against Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a flat measuring 805 sq. ft. (2 BHK + 2 TOI) in the OP’s project viz. Amrapali Dream Valley-II vide letter of allotment/agreement dated 08.09.2012 for unit no. B-6/1207 A, 13^th Floor, Type-2 (super area 805.00 sq. ft., one covered car parting) at the basic sale price @    Rs. 21,01,050/-.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 8,68,388/- through cheque and the said cheque was encashed by OP. 

          It was agreed between the parties that OP will deliver the possession of the flat in the month of July, 2015, but they extended the date of delivery up to December 2016.  As the complainant got retired from the government service, he had to vacate the government accommodation.  The complainant requested the OP in writing to return his complete amount of Rs. 8,66,388/- as he had to purchase new accommodation for his family.  On repeated requests, OP returned only Rs. 6,68,388/- by way of cheque after six months and deducted Rs. 1,98,000/- illegally.

          He visited at the office of the respondent and also sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2015, but did not get any satisfactory reply.  Thus, he has prayed for refund of Rs. 1,98,000/- alongwith interest of 24% p.a.;            Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation.       

3.       In the reply, OP have stated that the complainant originally booked a flat bearing no. C9-1105 having super area of 805 sq. ft. in the project “Amrapali Dream Valley”, but later on he had requested to swap the originally booked flat with flat no. B6-1207A (B6-1307) on 13^th floor, which was done immediately on 19.08.2012.  Flat No. B6-1207A (B6-1307) was allotted to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 23,89,600/- for which a Flat Buyer Agreement (herein referred as FBA) was executed  on 08.09.2012.

          It was stated that as per Clause 19(a) of FBA, it was agreed between the parties that OP shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for delivery of possession of said flat to the allottee. 

          It was further stated that completion of the said project was delayed due to various force majeure conditions which were beyond the control of OP.  OP was not liable for delay in construction of the said flat and the period provided under the FBA has to be extended.  Hence, there was no question of making request by the complainant asking for refund of the amount on the ground that the said project is unduly delayed. 

          It was also stated that this complaint has no territorial jurisdiction; it was a civil suit for recovery of consideration paid by the complainant under the FBA and the complainant was no more consumer.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.         In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as receipts/agreement/acknowledgements of payment as Ex.CW-1/1 colly.

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP and they stopped appearing, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of complainant that the complainant was entitled for the balance amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-, which was deducted by OP out of the total amount of Rs. 8,66,388/-, paid by the complainant. 

          It has further been argued that the complainant, being a government servant who retired from the service, was compelled to get the money back as the possession was not given within the stipulated time.

          The only short point that arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs. 1,98,000/- which was deducted by OP.  On perusal of the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 8,66,388/- for the flat which he booked in the year 2012.  The possession of this flat was to be given in July 2015.  The plea taken by OP has been that they could not give the possession as their project was delayed due to litigation in various courts. 

          If a look is made to the letter of dated 02.05.2014, it is noticed that the complainant have made the timely payments of the installments for the flat booked by him. The company have assured through its letter for timely delivery.  The fact that the complainant have made the timely payment and the company have failed to deliver timely possession, the complainant being a government employee was compelled to get the flat cancelled as was to vacate the government accommodation. 

          HBy having got the timely payments and failing to deliver the possession within the stipulated time, certainly, it amounts to deficiency in service.  OP cannot take the plea that delay was on account of litigation.  This plea cannot be accepted.  The fact that there was delay on the part of Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. (OP), the deduction made was not justified, therefore, the complainant was entitled for refund of deducted amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-. 

          Since the complainant was compelled to get the flat cancelled due to delay in possession and have got the refund after deducting an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- that too after six months of his request, certainly, he has suffered mental pain and agony for which he has to be compensated. 

          In view of the above, we order that Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. (OP) must refund the amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- to the complainant.  They are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of compensation which includes the cost of litigation. 

            The order be complied within a period of 60 days. If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 2,23,000/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order.  

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

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President