CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.128/2017
- MRS. SANTOSH DEVI
W/O LATE SH. RATAN LAL
- SH. KHUSHI RAM
S/O LATE SH. RATAN LAL
BOTH R/O H.NO.J-57,
KUCHA MOTAR KHAN,
MORI GATE, DELHI-110006
…………. COMPLAINANTS
Vs.
- M/S BHANU INFRATECH
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI BHANU
- SHRI BHANU
PROPRIETOR OF M/S BHANU INFRATECH
- SHRI VIVEK @ VIJAY
EMPLOYEE
- MS. NEETU
RECEPTIONIST
ALL AT PLOT NO.21-22, NEAR FLYOVER,
BADARPUR BORDER, NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:08.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The complainants herein, namely, (1) Mrs. Santosh Devi and (2) Shri Khushi Ram have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against (1) M/s Bhanu Infratech, (2) Shri Bhanu, (3) Shri Vivek @ Vijay and (4) Ms. Neetu, the Opposite Parties. The complainant narrates the facts in the complaint, alleging that the complainant no.1 is 70 years of age and complainant no.2 is her son; and that OP-1 is running the business of selling plots of land through its sole proprietor OP-2 and OPs 3 and 4 are its employees. It is submitted that OP-1 entered into an MOU with complainant no.1 for selling a piece of land bearing plot no.03, in Block F, area measuring 50 sq. yds. at Yakutpur, Tehsil Dabri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, @ Rs.2000/- per sq. yds. and received a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the MOU. OPs no.2 to 4 gave an assurance that they would hand over the said plot on final payment of remaining amount in 10 equal instalments from the booking date and would create basic infrastructure at their site and would execute all necessary documents in favour of complaint no.1 and get the same registered at the cost of complainant no.1 vide MOU dated 8th September, 2012. The complainant no.1 paid initial payment and the balance amount in instalments, and as such the full and final payment was received by OP-1 through its authorized signatory OP-3 vide receipt no.16383 dated 25.5.2014 and plot no. was wrongly changed from the initial plot no.1100, Block-A, measuring 50 sq. yds. It is submitted that complainant no.2 paid another sum of Rs.35,000/- to OP-1 for raising boundary wall but despite all this, OP-1 has failed to hand over the possession of the said plot to the complainant or execute the papers, and the OPs have been avoiding the complainants on one pretext or the others. Finally, the complainant were told that the plot would not be handed over and in its place, a plot at some other place along the bank of Yamuna would be allotted, which is a government land , and therefore the complainant refused to take that plot and demanded refund of the amount received by the OPs, but the OPs not only refused refund of the amount but extended threats to the complainants. It is submitted that like the complainants, so many other persons have also paid money to the OPs for purchasing plots but their money is also being retained by the OPs. The complainants are stated to have moved from pillar to post to seek refund including the complaints dated 18.12.2016 and 23.12.2016 to the SHO PS Badarpur, Delhi for taking action against the OPs but till date no action has been taken against them. It is submitted that due to the illegal action of the OPs, the complainants have suffered a great mental harassment, pain and agony for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation apart from the original amount of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest. The complainants have prayed that the OPs might be directed to refund the amount received by them along with interest, compensation for causing mental and physical harassment apart from litigation expenses.
The OPs were issued notice by this Forum but none appeared on 24.5.2017, when they were ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The complainants filed ex parte evidence and written arguments. In the affidavit of complainant no.2 filed by him for himself and for his mother, complainant no.1, the complainant deposed on oath all the facts mentioned in the complaint.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is proved from the unchallenged testimony of the complainant that the OP agreed to sell a plot measuring 50 sq. yds. @ Rs.2000/- per sq. yd to the complainant and at the time of booking of the plot, OP received a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a Memorandum of Understanding was duly executed on that date. The total price of the plot was Rs.1,00,000/-. The balance amount was to be paid in installments. The complainant paid the balance amount as is proved from the receipt no.16383 dated 25.05.2014 issued by the OP which shows that the OP has received a sum of Rs.95,000/-. The complainant has stated that an amount of Rs.5000/- was waived of by OP-1.
It is proved from the unchallenged testimony of the complainant that OP received the full amount of the plot from the complainant but possession was not delivered to him. Rather the complainant was told that plot will not be handed over and in its place a plot a some other place along the bank of Yamuna river, will be allotted. The said land has been acquired by the government and a such the complainant refused to take possession of the said plot. The complainant reported the matter to the police also but nothing was done. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 who is proprietor of OP-1.
OP -2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.06.2014. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
