CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.374/2013

RAVI ARORA

R/O 11/1606, PATAUDI HOUSE

DARYA GANG, NEW DELHI- 2…..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LIMTED

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK,

NEW DELHI- 110019

ALSO AT:

N-10, KALKAJI,

NEW DELHI.…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-11.07.2013

Date of Order- 23/12/2022

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OP with respect to non delivery of plot.

Brief facts as stated in complaint are that OP is in the business of land development and construction. It is stated that OP approached the complainant for booking of a plot in a project namely Dev City Bhiwadi. The complainant booked a plot admeasuring 100 sq. yards @ of Rs. 3191 per sq. yard in the aforesaid project. He made a payment of Rs. 2, 32,000/- towards the said booking by way of installments. The first installment was paid on 04.05.2008 and last was paid on 16.06.2012.

          It is stated that possession was to be handed over to the complainant within one year from the payment of first installment as per letter dated 09.05.2009. The complainant approached OP several times for delivery and possession but to no avail. He then, requested the OP to refund the amount but OP failed to repay any amount. On 28.09.2012, the complainant was asked to fill a form for cancellation of registration alongwith an affidavit for refund. No refund has been given to complainant till date. Thereafter, the complainant serve a legal notice dated 06.03.2013 for return of his money while alleging deficiency. The complainant prays for refund of Rs. 2,32,000/- with interest @24% p.a., damages amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/-, compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-.

          OP in its reply has stated that it is a company and should have been sued through GM or Managing Director. It is also stated that the complaint is of civil nature and is not covered under Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in services. OP has admitted that the complainant made the booking for allotment of 100 sq yards plot @ of Rs. 3191 per sq. yard. OP has denied the payment of Rs. 3,32,000/-. It is specifically denied that the possession of the plot was to be delivered within one year from the first installment. OP has also denied the cancellation of registration for allotment. OP has alleged regular default in payment by the complainant.

          Complainant in his rejoinder has stated that company is a legal person having its own offices and assets and a complaint is maintainable against OP. Complainant has also denied that the complaint is of civil nature. It is reiterated that a plot developed by OP admeasuring 100 sq. yard was booked and the payment was made as per schedule through cheques. The complainant has reiterated the submissions made in the complaint.

          The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit, copy of confirmation letter, copy of letter dated 09.05.2009 towards allotment, copy of receipts dated 05.05.2008, 24.06.2008, 10.09.2009, 15.12.2009, 22.09.2010,07.02.2012, tabular details of payment and a copy of legal notice with acknowledgement.

          OP filed evidence by way of affidavit OP has not filed any documents in support of its averments.

          The Commission has given thoughtful consideration to material on record. It is admitted by both the parties that complainant had made a booking for allotment of 100 sq. yards plot with OP @ Rs. 3191 per sq. yard. OP had denied the payment of Rs. 3,32,000/-. The complainant has filed OP’s allotment letter dated 09.05.2009 which categorically states that a booking for a 100 sq. yard plot was made vide registration No. 66223 in Dev City, Bhiwadi, in the name of Mr. Ravi Arora. The said letter also gives allotment date as 30.09.2009 for bookings on or before 01.09.2008. The letter also states that the construction work of the project is under progress. A confirmation letter in the name of complainant, Mr. Ravi Arora, for booking a flat/ plot bearing registered No. 66223 in June 2008 is also placed on record. The allotment letter dated 15.12.2009 is reproduced as under:-

You made a choice to allot a Plot of size 100 sq. yard Sq/Ft. Sq./Mtr.) in “DEV CITY BHIWADI” Project. We are glad to inform you that we allotted you a plot No. C -134.

These documents have not been denied by OP in any of its pleadings.

          Complainant has filed the following receipts issued by OP:

          OP has also not denied these receipts. It is apparent that an amount of Rs. 2,32,000/- has been paid to OP by the complainant towards development of 100 sq. yard plot bearing allotment No. C-134, registration No. 66223. OP has also not stated in any of its pleading that the possession of the said plot was handed over to the complainant.

OP has also raised the contention that the complainant is a defaulter. However, OP has not filed any demand letter requiring further payment. No documents have been placed on record by OP to show that they have raised demand or communicated the status of project. Admittedly possession of unit was to be delivered on 30.09.2009 but there is no whisper of possession. As such the Complainant cannot be termed the defaulter by OP. The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure v/s Trevor D’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seeks refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation.

          It is settled principle of law that OP, a developer or providing the services of developing and delivery of plots to consumers, is under Consumer Protection Act. OP has not delivered the plot despite taking Rs. 2,32,000/- from the complainant which is a clear case of deficiency in service. OP being a juristic person can be sued.

          Therefore, keeping in view all the facts, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is accordingly ordered that:

1. The OP would refund Rs. 2,32,000/- along with 9% interest p.a. from 06.03.2013 i.e. the date of legal notice till realization.

2. Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental stress, agony and physical inconveniences along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the order be supplied/ sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to record room.

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)          (RITU GARODIA)      (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)

           MEMBER                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT