Haryana

StateCommission

CC/168/2016

PRATIMA RJPA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BESTECH INDIA PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

BHUSHAN BHATIA

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.168 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution: 17.06.2016                  Date of Decision: 22.07.2016

 

Pratima Rajpal W/o Sh.Randeep Rajpal, R/o J-11, South City-1, Gurgaon.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., Registered @ Corporate Office: Bestech House-124, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana through its Managing Director.
2. Sh.Dharmendra Bhandari, Managing Director, M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., Registered & Corporate Office: Bestech House-124, Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                      

For the parties:  Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainant that due to universal slow down her business was not doing well and that is why she booked shop in the project launched by opposite parties (O.Ps.) known as “Bestech City Gate” vide application dated 17.02.2013.  Allotment was confirmed vide letter dated 10.05.2013.  As per advertisement of O.Ps. project was to be completed up to the month of December 2016, but, actually construction is at very slow pace and it would take at least 2-3 years for completion. She had already deposited Rs.54,69,407/- and the same may be refunded alongwith interest @ 18% per annum besides Rs.Five lacs as of compensation for mental harassment, Rs. Two lacs for unfair trade practice and Rs.55,000/- as legal expenses.

2.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

3.      Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as per advertisement of O.Ps. the shops were to be constructed up to the month of December 2016, but, construction is at a very slow pace and will be completed within 2-3 years.  So she be refunded Rs.54,69,407/- already deposited with the O.Ps. besides other relief as mentioned above.

4.      This argument is of no avail. As per this agreement, the possession is to be delivered by December 2016, whereas this complaint is filed in the year June 2016. Cause of action will accrue to complainant after expiry of the date mentioned in the agreement. At this stage, it cannot be opined that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  It is only the apprehension in the mind of the complainant that the OP would not be in a position to give possession.

5.      In view of the above discussion, it is clear that complaint is pre-mature and is not maintainable at this stage and is hereby dismissed.  However, the complainant will be at liberty to file complaint after expiry of date agreed in between them. 

 

July, 22th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.