CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.210/2013

MS. CHANCHAL SAXENA

BD-938, SAROJINI NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110023

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

CORPORATE OFFICE:-

F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

…………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order: 15.12.2017

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that she booked a flat in the project of OP at Mandawar, Uttarakhand, on 27.03.2007 and initially paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-.  Further amount was paid by way of monthly instalment of Rs.2000/-.  In all the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,05,000/-.  In June 2010, the complainant visited the site and found that no construction activities were carried out even after a lapse of three years.  As a result, the complainant vide letter dated 31.07.2010 sought refund of the amount and deposited the original receipts of payment, as desired by OP.  Despite that the amount was not refunded.  Rather in spite of above letter of the complainant, a further sum of Rs.2000/- was recovered by OP towards instalment due towards the flat.    Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, complainant has prayed for refund of the amount with interest and also sought compensation and legal expenses.

OP in reply took the plea that the complaint is time barred as well as this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction.  It is further stated that the complainant applied for refund and submitted an application with unsigned affidavit.  Even signature of the complainant on the application for refund did not match with her signature on the registration form.  It is further stated that the complainant is entitled to get only 85% of the amount deposited i.e. Rs.92,000/- only. 

In rejoinder the complainant denied that her signature did not tally with her earlier signature. 

We have gone through the records carefully.

The complainant has specifically stated that even after more than three years, no construction activities were carried out at the site.  Under these circumstances, the complainant was constrained to move an application for cancellation of the booking and refund of the amount.  The application is in printed proforma supplied by OP and with that application original documents were also submitted.  There is nothing on the record to show that any letter was sent to the complainant by OP stating therein that there is difference in her signature.  There is no iota of doubt that such a plea is taken by OP just to cover up his deficiency.  In fact OP has taken this plea just to cover up its deficiency in service. 

There is no question of complaint being time barred as neither the possession was given nor the amount was refunded.

OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

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. 

         (RITU GARODIA)                                                                   (A.S. YADAV)

               MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT