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.49/2013

SH. GOPAL GOVIND GUPTA

S/O SH. RAM JI LAL GUPTA

R/O H.NO.59-A, EXTENSION 1-C,

NANGLOI, NEW DELHI-110041

                                             …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                  

Vs.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LIMITED,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK,

NEW DELHI-110019

ALSO AT:-

F-89/11 PHASE-I,

OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI

                                                          …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                 Date of Order: 27.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav, President

Complainant booked a plot measuring 100 sq. years in the project “Arun Dev City, Shahpura” of OP @ Rs.1991/- per sq. yard for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,99,100/-.  It is stated that as per payment plan, the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the time of booking and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid on Bhoomi Poojan and the remaining amount was to be paid in three instalments of Rs.33,000/- each.  Complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 05.01.2007 and at the time of Bhoomi Poojan a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 25.04.07,

It is further stated that in fact OP failed to develop and compete the said project as was promised by them.  The complainant visited site several times but there was no progress in the development work.  Under such circumstances, in February 2008 complainant decided to cancel the booking and accordingly filled the form for refund of the amount.  However, the officials of OP assured that all the obstacles in the said project have been removed and development work will pick up the pace but in fact development work never picked up and accordingly complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 19.11.2012 on OP.  On the receipt of that legal notice, complainant was telephonically asked to contact their office at F-89/11 Okhla Industrial Area for refund of booking amount.  Complainant visited the office of OP number of times but inspite of assurance, nothing was given rather the officials of OP were pressurizing the complainant to shift the booking to some other project.  It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1 lakh and also to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for deficiency in service. 

OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as well as complaint is barred by limitation as the payment was made in the year 2007 and the present complaint is filed in the year 2013.  it is further stated that it is the complainant who has committed the breach as he has not made entire payment and OP is ready and willing to hand over the possession provided the complete payment is made.  It is further stated that OP has already handed over the possession to many persons who have made the payment.  It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 

So far as territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is concerned, it is significant to note that the payment was made to the branch office of OP at Chittranajan Park which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The entire transaction has taken place at this office and even the legal notice was served at the address of this office.  There is no question of the complaint being barred by limitation.  The payment was made by complainant in respect of booking of the plot in 2007 and despite request, the possession was not handed over and the amount was not refunded.  Accordingly complainant was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 19.11.12 even thereafter the amount was not refunded hence the complaint was filed on 29.01.13 and the same is very much within limitation.  OP has not placed anything on record to show that in fact the project was complete and sale deed has been executed in favour of persons who had made the payment.  Even the legal notice has not been replied to show that the project was complete and the possession has been handed over to the persons who had made the payment.  Complainant has categorically stated that in fact he was pressurized to shift his booking to some other project and this fact has not been specifically denied in the reply.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

            OP is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  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