Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/37/2017

Rajeev Chaturvedi s/o D.S.Chautarvedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Commissioner Jaipur Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

B.L.Ahiar

27 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 37 /2017

 

Rajeev Chaturvedi s/o D.S/Chaturvedi, Forest House, Opp.Civil Line Police Station, Jaipur Road, Ajmer at present N-13, Gandhinagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 27.9.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. Surendra Singh counsel for the complainant

Mr. Lalit Sharma counsel for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This original complaint is filed on 21.3.2017 with the contention that the complainant applied for a residential plot in Anand Vihar Housing Scheme of the non-applicant. Plot No. 1176 was allotted to him. He paid Rs. 46,40,400/-. Lease deed was also registered. Till today the possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant and it was also found that high voltage electricity line is going through his plot. Necessary facilities which were agreed have not been developed. Hence, refund of the sale price alongwith interest and compensation was asked.

 

Per contra the contention of the non-applicant is that work is in progress in Anand Vihar Housing Scheme. Construction of main roads already done. Plantation work is complete on the road side, electricity poles, lights, GSS were also installed. They are ready to give physical possession of the plot. High tension electricity line is not passing through the impugned plot and complaint should have been dismissed.

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The complainant has also submitted written arguments.

3

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant booked a plot with the non-applicant. Allotment letter Ex. 2 is submitted and this is also not disputed that he paid the amount of Rs. 46,40,400/-. Receipts Ex. 9 to 11 were submitted and lease deed is executed which is placed as Ex. 12 & 13. Ex. 14 communication of the non-applicant clearly shows that till 24.7.2014 the possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant. It has been mentioned in this communication that within thirty days of execution of the lease deed the possession of the plot could be taken otherwise possession would be deemed to be taken but the contention of the complainant is that till today the possession of the plot has not been handed over to him and to controvert this no possession letter has been submitted by the non-applicant. Further more condition of deemed possession seems to be unfair trade practice and even in reply to the complaint the non-applicant has not contended that physical possession of the plot has been handed over to the complainant.

 

The other contention of the complainant is that the plot is not physically demarcated and to support this contention he placed photographs of the scheme Ex. 3 to 8, Ex. 17 to 23 &

4

 

Ex. 25 to 30 which clearly shows the present position of the housing scheme and in the photographs no physical demarcation of the plots could be seen and even the counsel for the non-applicant could not show the demarcation of the plots in the photographs.

 

As per brochure of the scheme Ex. 1 park, under ground electricity, place for school, shops, hospital, community centre, marriage place and roads were promised to the complainant but photographs clearly shows that no such facilities were developed there.

 

The contention of the counsel for the non-applicant is that in photograph Ex. 20 at 'X' place the damar road could be seen but the contention seems to be untrue as in Ex. 20 and Ex. 21 at 'Y' place the muddy road not having any damar could be seen and photographs referred above which are not been disputed by the non-applicant clearly shows that the housing scheme is not still developed.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that as per report of Executive Engineer the high tension electricity line is not

5

 

passing through Plot no. 1176 but report or affidavit of the concerned Ex.Engineer has not been submitted. Thus, it can very well be concluded that still in the housing scheme development work has not been completed and not even in process.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that tenders for the development work has also been issued but no such tenders were submitted.

 

The complainant has placed reliance on III (2016) CPJ 240 (NC) Pinaki Enterprises Vs. Sutapa Das and IV (2016) CPJ 328 Parsvnath Exotica Resident's Association Vs. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. where in case of non-construction/development of the building refund has been allowed which is also the case here.

 

In view of the above the complaint is allowed in the manner that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 46,40,400/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of each deposit. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of

 

6

 

proceedings which should be paid to the complainant within two months otherwise it will also carry 9% interest from the date of order.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm