Delhi

East Delhi

cc/570/2013

TRIBHUWAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARUN DEV BUILDERS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2013

ORDER

Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, DELHI -110092
DELHI EAST
 
Complaint Case No. cc/570/2013
 
1. TRIBHUWAN SINGH
R/O A-5/119,SHIV MANDIR MARG MANDAWALI DELHI-92
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ARUN DEV BUILDERS
F-89/11 OKHALA INDX AREA PHASE-1,DELHI-20
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.A. ZAIDI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. POONAM MALHOTRA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

CC No.570/13

 

01.04.2015

 

            Heard. This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant had booked a flat with the respondent after depositing an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide  Receipt No. ADE-HRD/55001/138 dated 9th June, 2007. The respondent  promised to allot the flat within 24 months of the deposit but even after a lapse of 5 years the flat has not been provided. There is no construction at the spot. After looking to the spot position, the complainant decided to get his booking/ registration cancelled and requested for the refund of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 23rd April, 2012 and submitted all the required documents to the respondent . The respondent  has failed to refund the amount even after one year. A reminder was sent to it on 1st April, 2013 but of  no consequence. He also visited the office of the respondent and thereafter  gave legal notice  dt. 8th of May, 2013. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest thereon, appropriate compensation and damages etc.

The respondent were served. WS filed by the respondent challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that the property is situated in District Haridwar, Uttrakhand. The booking has been admitted they have allowed that the respondent is ready to hand over the possession and registered in the complainant if the balance amount is fail.

            Both the parties have  filed their respective evidence in the form of affidavit.

Heard and perused the record.

As per the allegation in the complaint this deposit was made in the year 2007 at the office of the respondent which is located at Okhla Indl Area, Phase-I at Delhi. All the communications have been received by the respondent  at their Okhla Indl Area office as is evident from the letter annexed in the complaint. It is true that the property in question is located at Haridwar but the respondent company was under an obligation to make the allotment of the flats under this project. As per the terms and conditions in the registration form which was also received by the complainant at New Delhi  the entire document shows that total transaction took place at Delhi. The complainant  demanded the refund of the amount after being dis-satisfied of the progress of the respondent to deliver the flat in question at Delhi. In these circumstances when the cause of action in respect of this flat initially and finally has arisen in Delhi, the Forum in Delhi shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and decide. The objection raised by the respondent have no force and it is accordingly rejected.

            It is very much clear from the registration form that the allotment  is to be made within 24 months of the deposit of this amount. Condition No.3 says that in case the allotment is not made within 36 months of the registration then the respondent shall refund the amount with simple interest of 9% per annum. The burden shifts upon the respondent to prove that they did actually allot any unit to the complainant and have thereafter started construction and demanded money from the complainant. There is not an iota  of evidence that this was ever done by the  respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent has failed to carry out its obligation as per the terms of the registration they have not refund the money when demanded after a lapse of more than 36 months. It is a clear case of not only of deficiency in service but also of unfair trade practice where the respondent have taken the money in deposit when it had no intention to develop the project at all.

In view of the above discussion, we allow this complaint. The respondent is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest thereon from the date of the deposit till it is finally paid. Taking the conduct of the respondent into consideration and the harassment meted out to the complainant we award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complaint which shall also include the cost of litigation. If this amount is not paid within 45 days the complainant shall be entitled for 9% per annum interest  on this amount also till it is finally paid.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.A. ZAIDI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. POONAM MALHOTRA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.