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.547/2012

MR. UTTAM VOHRA

A/254, PHASE-V, NEAR WATER TANK,

AYANAGAR, NEW DELHI-110047

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT

                                                Vs.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGER

C/O F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

                                    …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.326/2012

SH. RAJIV SINGH CHAUHAN & MEENA

S/O SH. RAM ROOP SINGH CHAUHAN & W/O RAJIV SINGH

            &

SMT. MEENA

W/O RAJIV SINGH CHAUHAN

R/O H.NO.298, CHOUPAL WALI GALI,

CPO – SAMALKA

NEW DELHI-110037

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANTS

                                                Vs.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                        Date of Order:09.09.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved.  For the sake of reference, facts of case no.547/2012 are detailed. 

In brief the case of the complainant is that he booked a flat measuring 460 sq ft. in the project of OP in Shahpura in February 2007 and initially paid a sum of Rs.23000/- as registration amount vide cheque No.938058 dated 10.2.2007 and further paid 38 instalments of Rs.2000/- each.  OP promised to deliver the possession in 36 months.  In April 2010 complaint visited the site and found that nothing was being done there and complaint was informed by OP that possession shall be handed over in July 2011.  Since OP was not in a position to complete possession complainant applied for refund of the amount and filed up an application as required by the OP. for refund of the amount.  That application is dated 08.8.11.  it is stated that till date the amount has not been refunded.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that complainant is not a consumer and this forum ahs no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is also stated that in fact it is the complaint who has committed default in the payment of the instalment and the possession shall be handed over after the payment of 80% of the amount and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Identical are the facts in respect of case No.326/2012.  In that case also complainant has booked a flat in Bhiwadi project of OP and paid a sum of Rs.90,000/-.  Due to delay in giving possession of flat, complainant filed application on 01.11.11 for the refund of the aforesaid amount.  However, the amount has not been refunded. 

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

So far as contention of OP that complaint is not a consumer is concerned, the same is without force.  Complainant has booked flat with the OP and over a period of three years paid a sum of Rs.99,000/- but nothing was done towards the progress of the project.  In fact OP has not placed anything on the record to show that they have got the permission for the project or there was any progress towards the construction of the flats.  Complainant is indeed a consumer.  Reference is placed on the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243.  It was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court again in case of M/s Narne Construction P. Ltd. etc. Vs Union of India & amp; Ors. etc. – Civil Appeal No.4432-4450 of 2012 decided on 10.05.2012.

So far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is significant to note that the application for allotment was received in the registered office of OP which is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  All the payments have been received in that office and receipts have been issued from that office hence this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction.

Complainant has placed on record the application dated 08.08.11 which is submitted for the refund of the amount as desired by the OP and that application was duly received by OP but even thereafter the amount was not refunded.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

The receipts placed on record show that the last payment was made in April 2010 hence In case No.547/12, OP is directed to refund Rs.99,000/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from May 2010.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Likewise In case No.326/12, OP is directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from May 2010.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- 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