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.35/2011

MR. SUMIT KUMAR

S/O SH. TILAK RAJ

R/O 1801 NEW MARKET

SANJAY BASTI OLD QTRS.,

TIMARPUR, DELHI-110054

                                    …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,

F-89/11 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

NEW DELHI-110020

                                    …………..RESPONDENT

                        Date of Order:20.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he booked a flat in the project of OP namely “Dev City Bhiwadi”, Rajasthan and paid a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to OP.  OP was to complete the project and hand over the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of registration.  Complainant visited several times to the construction site however no progress was seen except only a sample flat has been constructed at the site.  On 27.03.2010, complainant gave a letter to OP whereby certain information was received from OP as to whether the land for the project has been acquired or not, whether the approval from the appropriate government has been taken, whether the construction has been started.  But that letter was not responded by the OP.  Finding no alternative complainant sought cancellation of his flat vide letter dated 08.07.2010 and for refund of the amount.  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 Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith Rs.55,000/- as interest, Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

OP in the reply took the plea that in fact no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant.  The cause of action, if any, is after 36 months from the date of registration.  It is stated that it is complainant who has committed the default.  It is further stated that construction is going at the site and it will take some time to complete the construction and the possession is likely to be delivered within the time nearby settled in the agreement if the complainant makes the payment of instalments as per schedule.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed. 

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

It is significant to note that complainant has categorically stated that a flat was booked in October 2008 and he visited the site in question and found that no progress was going on regarding the construction of the flat.  Even a letter was written by the complainant to the OP on 27.03.2010 asking certain information regarding the acquisition of the land for the flat and the approval from the appropriate government.  But that letter was not responded.  If in fact the construction was as going on at the spot, nothing prevented OP to inform complainant about the stage of construction.  In fact OP has not written any letter to complainant informing him about the progress of the project and for further payment of instalment.  The reply filed by OP is quite evasive.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is bound to refund the amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs.1,35,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- 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)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT