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.313/2013

SH. SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY

S/O SH. DHARAMDEV PANDEY,

R/O VILLAGE DAHIGANA,

POST OFFICE BICICALAN,

DISTRICT ROHTASH(BIHAR)

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:-  F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.314/2013

SH. UMESH CHAND SAHOO

S/O SH. PRAHLAD SAHOO

R/O VILLAGE MANIJANG,

POST OFFICE TYANDAKURA,

DISTRICT CUTTACK(ORISSA)

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                      

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.315/2013

SH. SATISH KUMAR

S/O SH. SHOBHA RAM

R/O VILLAGE GHATAL, MAHANIWAS,

POST OFFICE HEROHODA, 

DISTRICT REWARI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

…………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.316/2013

SH. HEMANT KUMAR

S/O SH. DHARAM SINGH

R/O H.NO.52, VILLAGE JHARTHAL,

DISTRICT REWARI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.317/2013

SH. PAWAN KUMAR KAPOOR

S/O SH. RAM SWARUP KAPOOR

R/O H.NO.1503, WARD NO.9,

VPO BAWAL, TEHSIL BAWAL,

DHULERA ROAD, DISTRICT REWARI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                      

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.318/2013

SH. GIAN PARKASH

S/O SH. TARA CHAND

R/O VILLAGE BAWAL, MOHALLA MOTI JHEEL,

DISTRICT REWARI

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.319/2013

SH. DAYA RAM SAINI

S/O SH. SAMAY RAM SAINI

R/O VILLAGE JANSUA RAM GARH,

POST OFFICE JANSUI,

DISTRICT AMBALA, HARYANA

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                      

                                                VS.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

ALSO AT:- F-89/11, OKHLA PHASE-I,

NEW DELHI-110020

            …………..RESPONDENT

Date of Order: 02.08.2016

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.313/2013 are detailed. 

In brief the case of the complainant is that he applied for allotment of a plot of approximate 350 sq. yards in Dev City Project of OP at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as booking amount to the OP vide acknowledgement receipt dated 16.11.2007. 

It is further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the provisional registration application, the OP had agreed to handover the allotment of the unit within a period of 36 months from the date of registration/booking failing which the complainant got a right to ask for the withdrawal of the money deposited by the complainant.  The complainant has made the payment of Rs.52,000/- by way of cheques and the OP had issued the receipts to the complainant. 

It is further stated that even after three years, the OP has not allotted any plot and when complainant approached the OP, OP assured the complainant to allot the as early as possible.

It is further stated that on 01.11.2011, complainant again approached OP and the OP asked the complainant to fill up an application for cancellation of registration and for refund of amount and that application was filled up by the complainant and the copy of the application placed on record.  Even thereafter the payment was not made despite complainant visiting the office of OP several times and lastly complainant visited the office of OP in January 2013.  It is stated that it a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to allot the plot in the same project or refund the amount of Rs.52,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction as the property is situated within Rajasthan.  It is also stated that the it is the complainant who has made default in the payment of instalment.  The possession was to be handed over to the complainant if he pays the total cost of the plot.  The complainant himself was not willing to take the possession as he does not have the money to pay the total cost of plot.  It is further stated that the OP is not liable to refund the amount deposited as it is the complainant who has committed default in the payment of instalments.  It is stated that 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 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 hence this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

It is significant to note that even after passing of three years, no progress has been made towards the allotment of the plot.  OP has not placed any document on the record to show that he has ever demanded any instalment from the complainant.  It is proved on record that on 01.11.2011, original documents were submitted by the complainant to the OP for refund of the amount.  Even thereafter the amount was not refunded.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.52,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.313/2013.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.76,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.314/2013.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.315/2013.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.87,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.316/2013.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,22,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.317/2013.

There is some confusion regarding the amount paid by the complainant in complaint No.318/2013.  In fact in the complaint, the complainant has sought refund of Rs.87,000/- whereas in his application dated 01.11.2011, he has mentioned the amount Rs.98,000/-.  Complainant has placed on record the statement of accounts that show that initially at the time of booking, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by way of bank draft No.0260700 and the same is reflected in the bank statement.  Thereafter the entire amount which has been paid by the complainant to the OP is reflected in the bank statement which in fact shows that he has paid Rs.1,23,000/- to the OP.  It is not the case of OP that any amount be refunded to the complainant.  The complainant is entitled for entire amount paid by him.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,23,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.318/2013.

OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.76,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. since November 2011 as the original documents were submitted in November 2011 for the refund of the amount.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses in case No.319/2013.

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)                    (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

         MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT