Delhi

East Delhi

CC/718/2013

ANSHU GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AURA INFRA. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 718/13

Sh. ANSHU GUPTA

S/O Sh. S.C. GUPTA

R/O G-23/4A, RAJOURI GARDEN,

NEW DELHI-110027

                                                                                                                           ….Complainant

Vs

 

M/S AURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

78-B, GROUP D-2, JANTA FLATS,

KONDLY GHAROLI, MAYUR VIHAR-iii,

1.  

ALSO AT:

M/S AURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

B-III, SECTOR-5,

GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR,

NOIDA-201301                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ….Opponent

Date of Institution:17.08.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 06.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 09.11.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

HARPREET KAUR                        (MEMBER)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER)

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

 

Complainant Sh. Anshu Gupta has filed this complaint against M/s Aura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for deficiency in service. 

Complainant, Anshu Gupta, along with his wife Rakhi Jain booked a flat bearing unit no. K 203 having Super Area of 955 sq. ft. on the 5^th floor of Block no. K in a project at NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension for a consideration of Rs.15,15,875/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Five) in time link (construction link) plan and agreement with OP on 16^th July, 2007 vide agreement no. ALCHM/00138/2006-2007/K-503. The allotment as well as demand letter was issued to the complainant. The complainant had made a payment of Rs.13,74,425/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five only) to the Opposite Party being 95% of the total cost. As per the agreement the possession was to be handed over by April 2009, but the progress of the construction was never satisfactory. When the time of handing over the possession started, the complainant approached to Opposite Party, they sought more time for completion of the project. The revised date was given as June 2010, the complainant constantly approached the Opposite Party for possession which was not delivered. The complainant paying EMI of Rs.14,776/- to the bank for the loan taken by him and also paying monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- to his landlord. The complainant asked the Opposite Party to honour its commitment and compensate for the losses suffered by the complainant due to non performance and deficiency in services given by Opposite Party.

Finally the complainant gave legal notice dated 09.08.2011 asking them to pay a sum of Rs. 12,87,775/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Five) towards the damages for the cost of the plot paid and incurred by him. Thus he has prayed for compensation “compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and litigation charges.

Written statement filed by the Opposite Party. In the written statement of M/s Aura Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., (OP), they have taken various pleas such as “no Territorial Jurisdiction”, “Time Barred”, “as the last payment was made on 31.08.2007”, “Complainant was a defaulter”, Delay was beyond their control” etc.

No Rejoinder and Evidence was filed by the complainant even no evidence has been filed by the Opposite Party.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. Complainant has not appeared. It has been argued on behalf of Opposite Party that the complainant has not filed any evidence to substantiate the facts. Admittedly, the complainant has not filed any evidence. The fact that contents in the complaint have not been deposed on affidavit in the form of evidence, the case of the complainant cannot said to be made out against the opposite party. That being so, the complaint deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed. There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                                                (HARPREET KAUR)

     MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER

                                                                                                       

                                                       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                               PRESIDENT