CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.344/2017
BHAIRAB DATT JOSHI
S/O. LATE SHRI GANGA DATT JOSHI
R/O. 7-C, SHANTI VIHAR,
ABHAY KHAND- III, INDIRAPURAM,
GHAZIABAD – 201014 (UP) …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
CHAIRMAN/ MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD.,
F-1211, CHITRANJAN PARK,
NEW DELHI - 110019 .…..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-24.11.2017
Date of Order-
O R D E R
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN-PRESIDENT
The complainant in brief has alleged that OP is engaged in the business of real estate including sale of land; that a scheme of sale of residential plots measuring 100 square yards, 150 square yards and 200 square yards was launched by the OP in the name of Arun Dev City, Haridwar located at Delhi HaridwarRoad, Uttarakhand in the year 2006 vide scheme brochure Annexure 1. The complainant booked a 100 square yard plot on 30.09.2006 vide application annexure 2; one plot No. D-1624 was allotted to the complainant by OP vide allotment letter No. 6534 dated 15.04.2007 Annexure 3. On the request of the complainant the another relocated plot No. D-9 was allotted after payment of prime location charges Rs. 70,202/- in block D vide letter dated 07.09.2009 as per location map of the plot Annexure 4. Despite payment to the OP the sale deed of the plot has not been executed and possession of the plot was not handed over and no development work at site has been done for many years. The complainant has written various letter dated 13.07.2013, 11.11.2013, 31.05.2015 and 03.06.2016 to the OP for getting the registry of the plot (sale deed) done in favour of the complainant. The final notice dated 19.04.2017 sent by the complainant to the OP. It is further alleged that due to fraud and cheating by the OP and stopping of the development at a site for many years, it was clear that the OP was not going to handover the said plot to the complainant despite expiry of more than 11 years. It is therefore prayed that the OP be directed it to return the amount of Rs. 4,24,403/- along with 18% interest and also a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as petition charges.
Since no one appeared on behalf of OP vide order dated 05.01.2018 OP was proceeded Ex-parte.
Ex-parte evidence was filed by the complainant and written arguments was also filed by the complainant.
We have considered the written arguments and also heard oral arguments from the complainant’s side. Complainant has filed the evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
- Allotment letter is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/1 (Colly).
- Copy of letter dated 7.9.2009 along with plot location map is exhibited as Ex. CW1/2.
- Copy of letters dated 23.5.2009 an 9.1.2010 issued by OP is exhibited as Ex. CW 1/3.
- The details of the payment made by the complainant to the OP showing that the total payment having been made to the tune of Rs. 4,24,403/- has been Exhibited as Ex. CW1/4.
- No Objection Certificate issued by Op dated 24.03.2010 is Exhibited as Ex. CW1/5.
- Provisional receipt No. 6092 dated 25.3.2010 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/6.
- No objection Certificate for Title Deeds letter No. ADBL/HRD/PLOT/REG. No. 6534 dated 25.3.2010 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/7.
- Final notice with request for refund for all money together with interest vide letter dated 19.4.2017 is exhibited as Ex. CW1/8.
The Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the complainant and also carefully examined the documentary evidence led by the complainant. The allegation and evidence placed on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as OP has chosen not to appear and not to contest the present complaint. Thus, there is no denial of the fact that complainant has paid a total sum of Rs. 4,24,403/- to the OP against various documents already proved in his exhibits. Admittedly, neither the plot has been handed over nor any development work has been carried out on site by the OP.
The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure v/s Trevor D’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seeks refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation.
It is settled principle of law that OP, a developer is providing the services of developing and delivery of plots to consumers and is under Consumer Protection Act. OP has not delivered the plot despite taking Rs. 2,32,000/- from the complainant which is a clear case of deficiency in service. OP being a juristic person can be sued.
Therefore, keeping in view all the facts, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is accordingly ordered that OP would:
- Refund Rs. 4,24,403/- along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till its realization.
- Pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental stress, agony and physical inconveniences along with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of the order be supplied/ sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
