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.266/2013
SH. K.K. NARULA
S/O SH. J.P. NARULA
2ND FLOOR, B-221, SARASWATI VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110034
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LIMITED,
F-1211, CHITTRANJAN PARK,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 12.08.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that the complainant was interested in buying a well developed residential plots hence he approached OP wherein the staff of OP presented the rosy pictures of the project being developed at Arun Dev City, Roorkee, Haridwar. It is stated that believing the representation and promises of the OP that they would provide quality of services and fulfill their commitment with the customer, the complainant was allured to book a plot with the OP.
It is further stated that complainant has been very particular about period of time in allotment and delivery of plot in the project hence he asked from the staff of OP and he was assured by OP that possession of a well developed plot will be handed over within a period of 36 months. Accordingly complainant booked a plot measuring 150 sq. yds in the aforesaid project of OP and deposited Rs.75,000/- towards registration on 01.10.2006 vide cheque dated 29.09.2006. Thereafter complainant made payment of first installment of Rs.90,000/- vide cheque dated 29.11.06 and made another payment of Rs.90,000/- vide cheque dated 29.3.07. In all a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- was paid. The complainant was allotted a plot No.C-162 by the OP vide letter dated 15.04.07.
It is further stated that complainant waited for two years for any communication from OP regarding the possession of plot but no communication was received. Rather complainant received a letter from OP in June 2009 seeking apology for delay in the implementation of the project. Thereafter complainant waited patiently for delivery of the plot in well developed condition. Since no response was received from OP, complainant himself followed up the matter with the same and was shocked to know that the OP has not done anything for development of plots. Construction of basic amenities like sewer lines, pipe lines, gas lines, parking space etc. were not yet started by the OP Just a road was constructed between the plots. Complainant asked OP about the undeveloped plots. OP said that plots are ready for delivery and offer for possession has already been sent to complainant. As the OP had not developed plots and was not ready to deliver a well developed plot, complainant asked the OP to refund amount of Rs.2,55,000/- paid by him. As the complainant was not interested in a raw plot, therefore he refused to accept delivery of possession. Complainant was specifically assured by OP that the plots would be delivered in well developed condition. Complainant again visited the project site in December 2010 and came to know that OP has not taken any step for providing basic amenities and for development of plots in the said project.
It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP as OP has failed to deliver the possession of well developed plot. . It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount deposited by him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. plus Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.
It is further stated that the present complaint is filed within the period of limitation. In Meerut Development Authority Vs Ashok Kumar Sood, the Hon’ble National Commission relied on following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) CC NO.8481/2012:-
“In our view, the complaint filed by the respondent who had patiently waited for 27 years with the hope that he will get the plot was rightly not dismissed by the District Forum as barred by limitation because he had a recurring cause for filing a complaint in the mater of non-delivery of possession of the plot.”
OP in the reply took the plea that in fact it is the complainant who has committed default in the payment of instalment. It is further stated that the plots are ready for delivery of possession if the entire cost is paid by the complainant who has paid only 50% of the total amount. It is submitted that complaint is barred by time as the booking was made in 2006 and the present complaint has been filed in 2013.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is significant to note that complainant has stated in his complaint that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP as OP has failed to deliver the possession of well developed plot.
It is significant to note that in 2009 the OP itself has written to the complainant about the delay in the implementation of the project. OP has not placed anything on the record to show that in fact project was complete and the possession has been delivered to certain persons. Complainant has specifically stated that he was assured at the time of booking of the plot that possession of a well developed plot will be handed over within a period of 36 months. OP has failed to deliver the fully developed plot to the complainant. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund Rs.2,55,000/- 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
