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.452/2011

MRS. RENU AGGARWAL

W/O MR. ANIL AGGARWAL

R/O E-409, SHASTRI GALI NO.4,

EAST BABARPUR, SHAHDARA,

DELHI-110032

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                    VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-89/11, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110020

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order: 04.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that she has booked a plot of 100 sq. mtrs in the proposed Arun Dev City Project of OP at Haridwar, Uttrakhand.  In all complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,76,382/- towards the said booking upto 05.04.2007.  It is stated that OP promised to make allotment within six months of booking of plot but it was not done.  OP has not shown to the complainant any approval of the project from the appropriate authorities.  It is further stated that OP has been demanding a high percentage of infrastructural costs alongwith payments when not even an approach road exists for access to the project.  It is stated that it is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Complainant has claimed for refund of the total booking amount of Rs.1,76,382/- alongwith 18% interest as well compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and also there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is further stated that the complainant has paid only two instalments after booking and has made default in the payment of remaining three instalments.  It is further stated that OP has never promised that the allotment will be given within six months.  Rather it is stated that the allotment will be given to the complainant if he will pay 80% of the amount towards the cost of the plot.  It is further stated that OP was always ready to execute the registered sale deed but the complainant has not made the payment as per the payment schedule hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

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

In this case despite giving number of opportunities, OP has not filed evidence.  Accordingly his right to file the evidence was closed.  Complainant filed affidavit towards evidence wherein she has specifically stated that she made initial payment to the tune of 55% of the cost of the plot till April 2007. 

It is significant to note that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 28.09.2006, Rs.60,000/- on 28.11.2006 and Rs.66,382/- on 05.04.2007.  It is stated that at the time of signing of the application form, the officials of OP promised that the said plot will be delivered within 30 months but despite efforts made by the complainant number of times, the possession was not delivered. 

It is further stated in the affidavit that OP started making advertisements for the said project way back in September-October 2006 whereas OP got the licence on 26.04.2008.  It is stated that OP violated various provisions of Law by advertising the project without obtaining the proper licence.  It is further stated that even after six years of making the payment, possession was not handed over. 

It is further stated that vide circular dated 15.04.2013 issued by the Head Office of Town and Country Planning, Uttrakhand, addressed to M/s Arun Dev Builders Ltd. wherein it is stated that RHD License No.DOH-UA/26-RHD/2006 dated 26.11.2010 issued to M/s Arun Dev Builders Ltd. for Village Badheri Rajputan and Rehmatpur Atlam is cancelled and further M/s Arun Dev Builder is not allowed to develop or construct anything on this land. 

Complainant has categorically stated that even an approach road for access to the project was not there.  In fact on 23.04.2010, OP wrote a letter to the complainant that the construction of the project is under progress and likely to be completed soon.  It is significant to note that even after four years of taking the money from the complainant, construction was not even completed and stated to be in progress only.  This letter dated 23.04.2010 was duly replied by the complainant whereby she has brought to the notice of OP that till now there has not been satisfactory infrastructural development and there is no question of getting possession of the plot which is just like an agricultural land as there is no progress in it.  This letter is not replied by OP.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,76,382/- alongwith 9% interest p.a. from 2008 plus Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                         (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT