CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 229/2018
SHRI JATIN KUMAR
S/O LATE KISHAN LAL
R/O 39/564, 3RD FLOOR
NEAR MILAN CINEMA
CINEMA HALL ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110015
………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S ARUN DEV BUILDER LTD,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK,
NEW DELHI-110019
- PRAVEEN BHARDWAJ
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK,
NEW DELHI-110019
………….RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 24/07/2020
O R D E R
Rekha Rani - President
Mr. Jatin Kumar (in short complainant) has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act) pleading therein that in the year 2007 M/s Arun Dev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (in short OP) launched a project at Dehradun. The complainant applied for a plot measuring 100 sq yards and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as part payment in the said project of the OP. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with the OP vide cheque no. 598030 dated 07/02/2007 drawn on ICICI bank branch, New Friends Colony, Delhi in their corporate office at Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and OP issued a receipt no.6422, the registration no.26344 dated 22/02/2007. Further it is pleaded that OP sent a letter to complainant intimating him that the company’s project had got delayed due to government master plan. After expiry of four months complainant approached the OP and requested it to make the allotment of the plot but OP did not do anything.
Complainant then sent a letter dated 08/11/2016 to OP through speed post but OP did not reply to the said letter. The complainant thereafter requested the OP to refund the amount but OP neither allotted any plot nor refunded the amount deposited by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 01/05/2017 to the OP but OP did not reply to the said legal notice.
Further it is stated that OP is guilty of deficiency in service as it has not honoured
Its assurance of allotting a plot in time nor refunded the deposit of the complainant despite service of legal notice.
Complainant has sought the direction to OP to refund him an amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical agony and litigation cost.
Our predecessor bench proceeded against OP ex-parte vide its order dated 30/11/2018.
Complainant adduced evidence by way of an affidavit. He also filed W/A.
We have heard the learned counsel for complainant through video conferencing on 24/07/2020.
We have seen the material available on record. The complainant has placed on record the copy of receipt indicating deposit of Rs.50,000/- with OP at its corporate office at Chitranjan Park vide receipt no. 6422, registration no. 26344 dated 22/02/2007.
The complainant has also placed on record copy of letter of OP wherein OP apologised for further delay of the project stating the same to be on account of delay in Government master plan.
The complainant has also placed on record copy of his legal notice dated 01/05/2017 wherein he stated that his grievances regarding non development of project nor refund of his deposit were being addressed. He requested to OP refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest.
It is stated that despite service of legal notice OP did not pay any heed to the grievances of the complainant.
We have no reason to disbelieve the claim of the complainant as same remained unchallenged.
The claim lies within our territorial jurisdiction as the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the corporate office of the OP at Chitranjan Park.
The amount claim is also within our pecuniary jurisdiction.
The cause of action is continuons as the OP failed in its promise to develop the project and handover the possession of the allotted plot to the complainant on time. It also failed to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant when he demanded the same through his legal notice.
OP is therefore guilty of deficiency in service as it neither allotted any plot to the complainant nor refunded his deposit of Rs.50,000/-. OP cannot take advantage of its own wrong and make complainant suffer for no lapse on its part. There is nothing on record that there was any default or lapse on part of the complainant on account of which OP was justified in withholding an amount of Rs.50,000/- or not allotting the plot.
In view of the unrebutted testimony of the complainant his claim is allowed. OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realisation, Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
` Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(SHAHINA) (REKHA RANI)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
