Delhi

StateCommission

CC/580/2014

SH. RAJNESH KUMAR SINGH & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BPTP LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :  23.03.2018

Date of Decision :  02.04.2018.

Complaint No. 580/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

1. Sh. Rajnesh Kumar Singh

S/o late Sh. K.P. Singh,

 

2. Mrs. Shakuntla Singh,

W/o Sh. Rajnesh Kumar Singh,

 

Both resident of :

 

House No.494, Sector-37,

Faridabad, Haryana-121003........Complainants

 

Versus

          BPTP Limited,

          M-11, Middle Circle,

          Connaught Circus,

          New Delhi-110001.                                       …............Opp. Party

                                                                

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                       Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

                   (Judgement)

          The present complaint was filed for directions to the OP to refund Rs.15,19,846/- deposited by complainants with OP alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of booking i.e. 27.08.2008 till realisation, consolidated compensation of Rs.15 lacs for personal loss, physical and mental harassment for running pillar to post, pay litigation cost.

          It is not necessary to refer to the averments made in the complaint in detail because now the controversy remains confined to refund of brokerage amount only. On 22.11.2017 OP handed over cheque dated 29.11.2017 for Rs.2,79,495/- towards differential amount on account of interest. She stated that OP has adjusted Rs.1,06,219.68 paid by OP towards brokerage.  On the next date i.e. 12.01.2018 the OP filed bank statement showing payment of Rs.1,02,066/- to broker.  Complainant stated that they made the booking direct. Counsel for OP sought time to verify the said facts and if the same was found to be correct, the OP agreed to bring the said amount.

          On 23.03.2018 the OP filed copy of request letter for allotment containing impression of signature of complainant.  At page-5 of the said agreement in column at Sl. No.6 pertaining to sale organiser, name and address, name of Reality Zone (Sanjay Sharma) Ph. 9971223893 has been mentioned.  The OP also filed photocopy of acknowledgement of provisional registration application dated 27.08.2008 which shows the name of broker as Reality Zone.

          Above documents bring an end to the controversy that booking was direct.  Since the booking was through broker and OPs have already placed on record copy of bank statement showing that brokerage was paid to the broker, complainant cannot claim refund of the said amount.

          On 23.03.2018 the complainant tried to urge that they are entitled to Rs.2 lacs approximately.  According to them the difference represented the calculation of interest.  No such grievance was made on 12.01.2018.  It appears that complainants have become greedy after receiving the amount in terms of compromise and now they do not want the end of litigation.

          Regarding TDS certificate, the counsel for OP stated that OPs would send the TDS certificate by email to the complainants.

          In view of the above, the complaint stands disposed of as settled.

          Copy of the order be sent to the both the parties free of cost for information.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                      (O.P. GUPTA) 

MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

​