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.274/2012
SH. D.K. SHARMA
S/O SH. D.S. SHARMA
R/O 150-KILOKRI, BBC-COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110014
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.
F-89/11 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-I,
NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 03.08.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
It is not in dispute that complainant paid a sum of R.3,40,000/- in respect of a plot in the project of OP known as Arun Dev City at Haridwar, Uttrakhand. The complainant has placed on record the receipts showing this payment and moreover OP has admitted about the receipt of this amount in its reply.
The contention of the complainant is that instead of allotting the plot, the OP offered a flat in which the complainant was not interested hence complainant was constrained to approach OP and demanded refund of his amount. It is stated that OP has taken back all the receipts issued to the complainant effecting the payment and issued a new receipt dated 22.06.2010 assuring that the company would refund the deposited amount with 9% interest within a year.
It is further stated that as per the direction of OP, the complainant submitted necessary documents for the refund of the advance amount in the month of June 2011 however the OP has not returned the said amount alongwith interest. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund advance amount of Rs.3,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% plus Rs.5 lakhs for compensation and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the legal notice.
OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the plot in question is situated within the jurisdiction of district Haridwar, Uttrakhand. Moreover, there is no cause of action in the complaint as OP is ready to hand over the possession of the plot provided the balance amount of Rs.2,98,200/- is paid to the OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard complainant and gone through the written arguments placed on the record.
Complainant has placed on record the receipt dated 26.05.2009 wherein the OP has admitted about the receipt of Rs.3,40,000/- and stated that the Construction Work, Marketing of plots, Development of Roads are in progress. Laying down of electricity poles, sewer & water lines are in progress and they are planning to give possession in end of June’09.
Complainant has sought cancellation of registration and refund of amount by letter dated 01.06.2011. In view of that letter, the complainant has specifically stated that he requested for the refund and the original receipts were submitted and a fresh receipt was issued with a commitment that deposited amount will be refunded in the month of June 2009 and he has requested to refund the amount. That letter was duly received in the office of OP on 01.06.2011. Complainant has specifically stated that in fact the plot was never offered for possession rather OP offered a flat which was not acceptable to the complainant. And accordingly the refund was sought and OP promised to refund the amount but the amount was not refunded. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund Rs.3,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 01.07.2011. 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.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
