BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI.
Consumer Complaint No: 529 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 13.10.2011.
Date of Decision: 13.03.2015.
J.S. Yadav son of Ganpat Singh Yadav r/o house no. 8, Canal Colony, Rewari.
…….Complainant.
Versus
M/s Dwarkadhis Projects ( P) Ltd. 3D Binglo’s Tower A-8 Mata Ji Subash Place Pritampura, New Delhi.
…...Opposite Party.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Before: Shri Raj Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER
Present : Shri H.K.Luthra, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Akshaya Gupta, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar President
Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the complainant had booked a flat of 1500 sq. fts. area for three bed accommodation with the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 10.1.2007 with the application for provisional registration. It is alleged that as per condition of the application, neither the flat was allotted within the stipulated period nor the amount was refunded in spite of repeated requests; hence this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. besides compensation and litigation expenses.
2) In reply, it is averred that the complainant made a provisional registration of a three bedroom flat of 1500 sq.fts. by paying an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on 10.1.2007 and the allotment was subject to due execution of the company’s agreement . It is also averred that the complainant failed to deposit the remaining amount in spite of sending various reminders. It is alleged that in terms of Clause 14.1, the construction of the flat was subject to completing all the requisite approvals and subject to force majeure which are beyond their control and in case of cancellation of apartment, the amount is refundable only after deducting 10% of the total sale price of the apartment. It is further averred that the construction work of apartments is in full swing and they are ready to perform the part of the promise of providing apartment subject to payment of the dues. In the end, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3) We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.
4) It is not disputed that no agreement in between the parties has been executed so far. However, the applicant had moved an application for provisional registration of flat on 22.1.2007 which contains terms and conditions of the allotment. Clause “a” of the application reads as under :-
“That your offer of allotment for flat in your proposed scheme
shall as far as possible be made to me/us within 9 months
of my registration/or application made herein failing which
I/we shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% p.a. thereafter”.
Thus, it is made clear that the offer of allotment of flat in the proposed scheme was to be made within nine months of application and in case of default by either party, the money will be returned by deducting 10% with simple interest. We have anxiously perused the record of the case. No evidence has been led nor no cogent reason has been given for not completing the construction in time till today even after a lapse of 7 years. The contention of opposite party that the complainant himself is guilty as he has failed to maintain financial discipline and has not paid the installments in time cannot be accepted. Since no cogent reason for not even constructing the flat in question so as to allot the alleged flat is there nor there is any likelihood of completing construction and handing over the flat in near future, the complainant cannot be left to live in misery and wait indefinitely , at the mercy of the builder. The builder has lured the innocent consumers at large by launching tempting scheme with high sounding promises but without meaning anything. Thus, the conduct of the opposite parties shows grave deficiency on their part. As per Clause (g) sub clause(vi) “the allotment shall be subject to due execution of the Company’s agreement in its standard format including maintenance agreement and acceptance by me/us of all the terms and conditions of the company”. No reason has come on record as to why the agreement could not be executed . The opposite party cannot get benefit of its own wrong for not executing the agreement. However, the application Ex. OPW-1/3 containing terms and conditions of allotment is as good as agreement and we are of the view that it has got force of the agreement which is enforceable under Consumer Protection Act. The duty of the service provider is to provide prompt, effective and helpful service to the consumer and not to harass it. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the deposited amount with interest @ 10% p.a. in terms of condition “a” of the application Ex. OPW-1/3.
5) Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. The complainant is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- besides litigation expenses which are quantified at Rs 11,000/- against the opposite party. Let the compliance of this order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Announced
13.03.2015.
President,
Distt. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari.
Member,
DCDRF,Rewari.
