Case No.CC/51/2022

Date of Institution:-25.02.2022

Order Reserved on :- 11.09.2024

           Date of Order :- 17.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Suprita Kalra

D/o Tajinder Singh Kalra,

R/o 60/1, Baird Place,

Sadar Bazar Road,

Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

Antriksh Urban Greek Private Limited

Through its Directors,

Shop No. 206, Second Floor,

Best Acrade, MLU Plot No.-3,

Dwarka, Delhi – 110075.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatthe Complainant has booked a unit in project of OP namely “Antriksh Urban Greek”, L Zone, Sector-11, Dwarka in July, 2015 on the basis of various personal assurances, promises and persistently luring by the OP.  The complainant has booked a unit for residential purpose and paid Rs.5,27,900/-. The complainant was allotted unit no. B-402, 4^th Floor, Tower-B, admeasuring 1100 sq. ft. vide welcome letter dated 09.09.2015 by the OP.  The complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs.10,65,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred) in different installments to the OP.   The OP has not executed the apartment buyer agreement with a delay 6 years whereby the OP had informed the complainant at the time of booking the possession of the said unit was to be handed over within 36 months i.e. by July, 2018.  The complainant has requested the OP again and again to execute the apartment buyer agreement with the complainant but the OP has failed to execute apartment buyer agreement with the complainant till date. The complainant has stated that the OP has kept the complainant in the dark with false promises of timely completion of the project but there was no construction activity at the project. The OP has failed to update the complainant about the status of construction of project.  The complainant has prayed for refund of total consideration of Rs.10,65,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.5 Lakh for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2 Lakh towards litigation charges.
2. Notice was served to OP but OP did not attend the proceedings before this Commission and OP was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 12.04.2024. 
3. The complainant has filed Ex-parte evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
4. On 11.09.2024, the case was listed for arguments and we have heard Sh. Khush Kalra, Ld. Counsel for the complainant, OP is ex-parte.  Hence, the order was reserved.
5. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly.
6. It is the case of the complainant that she had booked a unit for residential purpose in project of OP namely “Antriksh Urban Greek”, L Zone, Sector-11, Dwarkaand paid Rs.5,27,900/-. The complainant was allotted the unit no. B-402, 4^th Floor, Tower-B, admeasuring 1100 sq. ft. vide welcome letter dated 09.09.2015 by the OP.  The complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs.10,65,800/- in different installments to the OP.   The OP has not executed the apartment buyer agreement with a delay 6 years whereby the OP had informed the complainant at the time of booking the possession of the said unit was to be handed over within 36 months i.e. by July, 2018.  The complainant has requested the OP again and again to execute the apartment buyer agreement with the complainant but the OP has failed to execute apartment buyer agreement with the complainant till date. The complainant has stated that the OP has kept the complainant in the dark with false promises of timely completion of the project but there was no construction activities at the project. The OP has failed to update the complainant about the status of construction of project.
7. It is the case of the complainant that when she did  not get the possession of the flat so sought the refund of the deposited amount, but the same has not been refunded by the OP despite repeated requests.  It is her case that this conduct of the OP amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Non-delivery of the possession of the flat on receipt of the booked amount within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.

“Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kolkata West International City Vs. Devasis Rudra dated 25.03.2019 Civil Appeal 3182/2019 is an authority on this point.”

8. It is the case of the complainant that when she did not get the possession of the flat, she asked for refund the deposited amount but the same has not been refunded by the OP.   The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is believed.
9. From the facts of the case and evidence placed on the record, it is clear that receipt of the deposit amount of Rs.10,65,800/- from the complainant, the OP has neither handed over the possession of the flat nor refunded the amount to the complainant and this act apparently and clearly constitutes deficiency in service, monopolistic and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
10. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.10,65,800/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred)alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh)as lumpsum for mental harassment and litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from date of receipt of order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 17.09.2024.