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.509/2012
SH. SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA
S/O LATE SH. SHIVAJI PRASAD
R/O – VILLAGE +PO-DHANSOIN
(NEAR DURGA MANDIR)
DISTT-BUXER, BIHAR
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019
ALSO AT:-
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-89/11, OKHLA PH-I, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
AND
Case No.510/2012
SH. ANIL KUMAR
S/O SH. BHARTAT RAI,
R/O – L-1ST, 12/2226A, SANGAM VIHAR,
NEAR ASTHAL MANDIR,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019
ALSO AT:-
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-89/11, OKHLA PH-I, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
AND
Case No.511/2012
SH. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
S/O SH. J.J. RAM SINGH
R/O US-41, RLY CLY L-2,
MANDWALI, FAZAL PUR,
DELHI-110092
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019
ALSO AT:-
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-89/11, OKHLA PH-I, NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:21.04.2016
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.509/12 are detailed.
In brief the case of complainant is that OP is a real estate developer. In May 2011, representative of OP approached complainant for purchasing of plot in the project of OP known as Yamuna Vihara at Dekola, District Faridabad, Haryana. Complainant booked a pot measuring 33.5 sq. yds. @ Rs.4,000/- per sq. yds. in the project of OP and paid Rs.500/- at the time of registration on 13.06.2011 and further deposited Rs.33,000/- on 28.06.2011 and thereafter the amount of Rs.24.196/- was paid in instalments. In all complainant paid Rs.57,696/- to OP. Complainant visited the project of OP and found that no land have been acquired by OP at the project site and upon asking about the status of the land OP replied that he will give him plot at another site which was at a far distance. Complainant declined the offer and requested for the return of the amount. Complainant asked for cancellation of his allotment vide letter dated 02.04.2012 and for refund of the amount paid by him. As per the instruction of OP, complainant had given all original payment receipts to OP. OP assured complainant that all payments will be given within 30 days from cancellation of the allotment however till date OP has not made the payment. 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 the amount of Rs.57,696/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.50,000/- for compensation for mental harassment, Rs.10,000/- for travel expenses and Rs.25,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence no cause of action arose in favour of complainant against OP. It is further submitted that complainant has committed default in payment of instalment. It is denied that OP has not purchased land for the project in question at Bhiwadi for Dev City project Bhiwadi. OP has never failed to offer allotment of plot to complainant at Bhiwadi. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record.
In fact the reply field by OP is quite evasive. OP was not even aware that this case pertains to the project at Faridabad and not at Bhiwadi because in the reply OP is talking about property in Bhiwadi. It is stated on behalf of OP that in fact complainant has booked a plot in the project of Arun Dev City Space Pvt. Ltd. whereas the present complaint has been against Arun Dev Builders Ltd. hence the same is not maintainable. Moreover this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is significant to note that the agreement regarding allotment was executed at New Delhi. It is significant to note that in the entire reply Arun Dev Builders Ltd. has nowhere stated that it has nothing to do with registration in question. Rather Arun Dev Builders Ltd. has admitted about the receipt of the amount and booking in respect of the project. The letter for cancellation though addressed to M/s Arun Dev City Space Pvt. Ltd. was received by M/s Arun Dev Builders Ltd. and the original papers received by M/s Arun Dev Builders Ltd. Hence to say that Arun Dev Builders Ltd. has nothing to do is without force. May be Arun Dev City Space Pvt. Ltd. was sister concern of Arun Dev Builders Ltd. but fact remains that in reply Arun Dev Builders Ltd. has not taken any objection regarding this fact. Since the agreement took place in New Delhi hence this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. OP has not placed anything to show that land has been allotted to them for their project. No sanction order for development of the project has been placed on record. Rather in the reply, OP has stated about project in Bhiwadi and not the site in question. As required by OP, all the original receipts were handed over to OP. OP was bound to refund the entire amount. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In case No.509/2012, OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.57,696/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from May 2008. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
In case No.510/2012, OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.85,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from May 2008. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
In case No.511/2012, OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.55,625/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from May 2008. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied 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) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
