DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92
CC No.567/2014:
In the matter of:
Smt. Jyotsna & Sh. Anil Kumar
Both Resident of A-176, Sector - 31,
Noida (U.P.)
Complainant
Vs
M/s. Arun Dev Builders Limited
Office F-1211, CR Park,
New Delhi – 110 019
Respondent
Date of Institution – 21/07/2014
Date of Order - 25/03/2015
ORDER
Ms.Poonam Malhotra, Member:
The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that the dealer of the respondent offered the complainant a booking for a plot in Mandawar, Haridwar. After understanding all the terms and conditions the complainant booked a 100 Sq.yds. Residential Plot in a present and future project of the respondent by depositing an advance money of Rs. 50,000/- through Cheque No. 322710 dated 30/09/2006. The said payment of the complainant was acknowledged to have been received by the respondent and it had issued a Receipt No. 7713 to him. At the time of offering the said plot the respondent had assured to the complainant that in case the company is not in a position to make offer of allotment for the said plot within a period of 12 months from the date of application the complainant shall have the right to withdraw the money with interest. The complainant paid in all Rs. 2,44,100/- towards the cost of the plot booked by him. It is submitted that the respondent allotted Plot No. D-1988 to him vide Allotment Letter dated 15/04/2007. The complainant alleges to have paid a further amount of Rs.67,700/- vide Receipt No. HRD/7713/5/17106 towards the cost of the plot. It is alleged that with the consent of the complainant the respondent changed the plot allotted to him with Plot No. B-150 vide letter received by the complainant on 31/03/2010. The complainant visited the office of the Respondent to inquire into this matter but got no satisfactory reply. Despite repeated enquiry about the progress of the project the respondent gave no satisfactory reply. The complainant has prayed for refund of the total amount deposited with the respondent with interest @ 21% p.a. from 2006, Rs. 1,00,000/- for compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
Despite service of notices issued to the respondent it none put up appearance and case proceeded exparte against them.
Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by the complainant in support of her case which is not controverted.
Heard and perused the record.
We have gone through the record. In its letter dated 31/03/2010 the Respondent had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.2,44,100/- from the complainant towards the cost of the plot allotted to them. It is also evident from the record that the complainant has paid a further amount of Rs.67,700/- vide Receipt No. HRD/7713/5/17106 towards the cost of the plot. Thus, in all the complainant has paid Rs.3,11,800/- towards the cost of the plot allotted to her by the respondent in its Residential Project “Arun Dev City”at Haridwar.
During the course of proceedings, a query raised by this Forum as to whether the present case was a case of simpliciter sale of a plot of land or was the respondent under an obligation to develop the plot before delivering its possession to the complainant. In reply to the said query she has by way of an additional affidavit in evidence stated that the respondent had assured to develop the entire residential project in which the plot was allotted to her with infrastructure, facilities, roads, electricity, sewer. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the complainant was shocked when she visited the project and found that there was no development on the project site and the respondent did not give any satisfactory reply to the enquiry made by the complainant about the status of development of the residential project in which the plot was allotted to the complainant. Thus, it is amply clear that the plot allotted to the complainant was to be developed by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled position of law that uncontroverted evidence cannot be disbelieved and there is no reason for us to disbelieve the uncontroverted averments made by the complainant. It is significant to mention here that the name of the project “Arun Dev City” also supports the statements made by the complainant on oath in evidence.
In such circumstances with continual uncertainty hovering over the project in question and there being no development at the project site as promised by the respondent, the act of the respondent in withholding the money of the complainant without satisfying her about the prospects of the project in which she had invested is iniquitous and the complainant is justified and well within her rights in demanding her money back from the respondent as it has failed to stand by its commitment to the complainant.
Taking into consideration the sequel of observations and discussion made supra, we direct the respondent to refund Rs.3,11,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from their respective dates of deposit, till the amount is finally paid out to the complainant as it had used the hard earned money of the complainant to its advantage. The respondent shall also pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the harassment meted out to her at the hands of the respondent and this amount shall include the litigation cost. The respondent shall comply with the order within 45 days of its receipt. Failure to comply as directed, the complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation and cost also till the amount is finally paid to her.
Copies of the order may be supplied to the parties as per rules.
(Poonam Malhotra) (N.A. Zaidi)
Member President
