Case No.CC/612/2013

Date of Institution:-28.11.2013

Order Reserved on :- 30.05.2024

           Date of Order :-31.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Yogesh Yadav

S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Yadav,

R/o Village Navada Fatehpur,

P.O. – Sikendeerpur,

Gurgaon (HR).

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

Dreamland Promoters & Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

F-132, Jai Vihar, Phase-1,

Near Airforce Depot, Nangloi Road,

Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043.

Also at :

3-A, 3^rd Floor, Uppal’s M-6 Plaza,

Jasola District Centre,

New Delhi – 110025.

211 to 213, 2^nd Floor,

Krishna Apra Plaza,

Sector-18, Noida – 201301.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatcomplainant has lured by the various advertisements of the OP and booked a plot in the project of OP namely ‘Royal Heritage’ on Bhiwadi Always Highway. The complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the OP. The receipt no. 5474 dated 09.07.2008 issued by the OP is annexed as Annexure C-1.  The registration form was filled by the complainant and executed in Delhi. The registration form provides for refund @ 10% p.a. in case the company is not in a position to offer plot within 12 months. The complainant has visited the site in November, 2008 when he came to know that no development work has been started at the site.  The matter was taken up with the builders who assured that development activity will start very soon.In March, 2009, OP issued a communication regarding Bhumi Pujan annexed as Annexure C-2. The complainant has requested for refund of his deposited money but in vain. The complainant came to know that multiple complaints has been registered against OP with PS EOW New Delhi as well as an FIR no. 56/09 PS Sarita Vihar New Delhi  was also registered against the OP. The complainant has lodged a complaint with PS EOW New Delhi annexed as Annexure C-4. The complainant is a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act who has taken the services from the OP who have failed to perform or fulfill their obligations.  Hence, the present complaint.
2. The complainant prayed for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh)alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- for the damages besides compensation and Rs.21,000/- asthe costs of the litigation.
3. Notice was served to OPand OP entered its appearance and filed written statement taking several preliminary objections including the one that the present complaint filed by the complainant is beyond limitation and barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The OP has stated that the present compliant is not maintainable because it is not a matter of consumer disputes, rather it is a matter of breach of contract as there was a contract executed between the  parties and it is the complainant who has not fulfilled the terms and conditions set out in the agreement dated 21.08.2006, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 
4. In response to the written statement, the complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations leveled in the written statement.
5. Both the parties have filed affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments in support of their respective case.
6. The matter was listed for final arguments on 30.05.2024 and none was appeared. Since the case pertains to 2013, we feel it prudent that the case should be decided due to the long pendency of the present complaint. Hence, the case was reserved for order.
7. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record.
8. It is the case of the complainant that booked a plot in the project of OP namely ‘Royal Heritage’ on Bhiwadi Always Highway. It is also the case of the complainant that he has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the OP as per terms and conditions but despite payment the possession of plot was not handed over to him. It is his case that when he did not get possession of plot, he asked for refund of his deposited money but the same has not been refunded by the OP despite repeated requests.  It is the case of this conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP has not denied the booking of the plot in their written statement stating that it is a matter of record and needno reply.  It is also stated that complainant has failed to pay further installments as per payment plan. As far as the plea of Arbitrator clause between the parties is concerned, the same is not relevant as Section 3 and Section 100 CPC do not bar in filing of such complaint, despite having their Arbitration clause between the parties.  The OP has not refunded the money to the complainant, however these reasons are not relevant to the issue and the OP was under obligation to refund his booking amount as claimed by complainant. Non-delivery of possession of flat on receipt of money within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

“ArifurRehman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Home Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512” is the authority on this point.

9. In the end, it is clear from the records that the complainant has paid money for the plot but the possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant. 
10. We are satisfied that this act on part of the OP constitutes deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.
11. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh)to the complainant alongwth an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited moneyandRs.70,000/- (Rupees SeventyThousand) as lumpsum for mental agony and litigation charges within 45 days from date of receipt of the orders failing which OP shall be liable to pay entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 31.05.2024.