Delhi

South II

cc/363/2017

ANAND RAY AND RAJESH JHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHANU INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Aug 2024

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. cc/363/2017
( Date of Filing : 15 Dec 2017 )
 
1. ANAND RAY AND RAJESH JHA
NW-147, VISHNU GARDEN, TILAK NAGAR, NEW DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BHANU INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
21-22, DHARAMVEER MARKET, BADARPUR, NEW DELHI-110044.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Monika Aggarwal Srivastava PRESIDENT
  Dr. Rajender Dhar MEMBER
  Ritu Garodia MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 23 Aug 2024
Final Order / Judgement

             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:363/2017

 

Anand Ray

Rajesh Jha

Both R/o NW-147

Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar

New Delhi.                                                   …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

  1. M/s Bhanu Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Through its CMD

Corporate office: 21-22, Dharamveer Market

Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

 

  1. Mr. Pankaj Tyagi, Managing Director

M/s Bhanu Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

Corporate office: 21-22, Dharamveer Market

Badarpur, New Delhi-110044

 

  1. Mr. Arvind Srivastave,

General Manager (Operations)

A 383/1/2 NH08 Main Road

New Delhi-110010.                                                       …..RESPONDENTS

     

          Date of Institution-15.12.2017

          Date of Order- 23.08.2024

 

 O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

  1.  The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on part of OPs.

 

  1. The facts stated in complaint are that the complainant purchased a plot admeasuring 50 square yards @Rs.8500/- per Square Yard at Dhiraj Nagar, Yamuna Enclave-Part 4, Faridabad at Haryana.  A MoU dated 13.03.2013 was executed on payment of Rs.1,06,500/- and plot no.141 was booked.  The complainant made a total payment of Rs.4,06,500/- in several installments till 21.09.2014.  A balance amount of Rs.18,500/- was to be paid at the date of registration and handing over the physical possession.  OP did not hand over the possession despite repeated requests.

 

  1. It is alleged that the complainant was made to sign an affidavit for refund of the total amount paid but no refund was made. Thereafter, a legal notice was also sent to OP for refund. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.4,06,500/- with 24% interest and Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment.

 

  1. Notice was issued to OP who failed to appear before the Commission.  OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2018.

 

  1. Complainant has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
  1. Copy of Aadhaar is exhibited as Exh.CW-1/1.
  2. Copy of advertisement brochures are exhibited as Exh.CW-1-Mark 1/1.
  3. Copy of reviews from internet are exhibited as Exh.CW-1-Mark 1/2.
  4. Copy of receipts are exhibited as Exh.CW-1/2 & 3
  5. Copy of MoU is exhibited as Exh.CW-1/4.
  6. Copy of receipts of payment is exhibited as Exh.CW-1/5 – 1/21

 

  1. The Commission has considered the material and documents on record. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.04.2013 shows that OP will hand over a plot no.141 admeasuring 50 square yard @ Rs.8500/- square yard at Dhiraj Nagar, Yamuna Enclave-Part 4, Faridabad, Haryana to the complainant.  The said MoU also shows that an earnest amount of Rs.1,06,500/- has been paid and the balance amount will be paid within 18 months.  The payment schedule shows that the balance amount of Rs.3,18,500/- would be paid in 18 monthly installment.  The complainant has annexed receipts demonstrating that a sum of Rs.4,06,500/- has been paid till date.

 

  1. The complaint was filed on 15.12.2017.  OP has not controverted the fact that the complainant has received possession even after paying more than 95% of the total sale price.

 

  1. The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure V/s TevorD”lima (2001) 5 SCC 442 has held 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.

 

  1. The complainant has categorically stated that he has not received the possession of the plot.  In the absence of any denial or rebuttal by OP, the complainant’s stands regarding deficiency in service stands proved.  Hence, we direct OP to pay Rs.4,06,500/- along with 9% interest from the date of last deposit till realization.  We also direct OP to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical inconvenience inclusive of litigation expense.

 

  1. File be consigned to record room.  Order be uploaded and to be complied with within 30 days from the date of the order.
 
 
[ Monika Aggarwal Srivastava]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Dr. Rajender Dhar]
MEMBER
 
 
[ Ritu Garodia]
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.