Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No. 10/20.02.2023.

Kulbhushan s/o Sh. Khule Ram

r/o 16/1419-E, Bapa Nagar, Padam Singh Road,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi                                                                               …Complainant

                                                Versus

OP. Gennext Infratech Pvt. Ltd.

House No.2, Ground Floor, Behind Old Police Chowki,

Madan Giri Village, New Delhi-110062

Also at: W2/29, Manchshaw Marg, Anupam Garden,

Sainik Farm, Delhi-110068

Also at:  E-37, Ground Floor, Sector-3, Noida (UP)                              ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing:              20.02.2023

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:             20.09.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female

                                                       FINAL ORDER [ex-parte]

Inder Jeet Singh , President

It is scheduled today for order (item no.24 )

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP/developer/builder for allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services since despite entire payment of consideration amount of Rs.5,90,000/- as well as other demanded ID charges of Rs.1,50,000/-, the OP failed to deliver the plot booked within time or reasonable time. That is why this complaint.

            The  OP was issued notice on this complaint at its all the addresses including at email address; it was served at address of Noida, UP. But OP did not appear, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 02.08.2023.

2.1 The OP is developer and it is doing business of construction/development. In March, 2014, the OP approached the complainant, it introduced about its residential project  known as "Frontview Residency, Neemrana (Rajasthan) and successfully induced the complainant to buy a residential plot of 100 square yards to be a successful project. The complainant believed the assurances of OP and its officials, then he booked a plot of 100 square yards at the rate of Rs.5,400/- per sq. yard by paying booking amount of Rs.1,20,000/- vide cheque no.251153 dated 31.03.2014, followed by other payment of Rs.1,30,000/- vide cheque no.251154 dated 04.04.2014, which were drawn on SBI, for which receipt was also issued by OP. Thence further payment of Rs.2,90,000/- was also made to OP vide cheque no.534121 dated 25.07.2014 drawn on PNB. The complainant paid total amount of Rs.5,90,000/-, hence he had paid the entire consideration amount of plot of land. .

2.2.   On 23.06.2014, the parties also entered into developer-buyer agreement. The OP also issued allotment letter by allotting  plot no. 68, Block-A, Fortview Residency Neemrana, Rajasthan. The complainant, on demand of OP, paid Rs.1,50,000/- as IDC charges in three installment against receipts dated 12.0.2016, 23.08.2016 and 23.11.2016. The OP also issued "no due certificate" in the form of undertaking dated 04.01.2017. The complainant was assured to handover possession of the plot, however, till date it has not been delivered. The complainant had been visiting the office of OP and requesting the officials of OP, but no result of assurances given. Then complainant also requested the OP and its official either to deliver the possession otherwise, to return the amount paid with interest. The complainant was assured by OP by emails dated 02.04.2019, 15,03.2020, 28.01.2021 and 09.03.2021 that his amount is safe,  or to refund the amount  or alternate property. It was also  not honoured by OP, which is mala-fide, unfair trade practice  on the part of OP besides causing harassment and losses to the complainant, for which complainant seeks compensation of Rs.1 lakh. On the other side, the complainant was interested in the possession of the plot, but OP failed to perform it. 

            That is why this complaint for necessary directions to the OP either to deliver booked plot, in alternate to return paid amount with interest at the rate of 12% thereon, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and other relief. The complaint is accompanied with consolidated receipt of payment of Rs.5,40,000/- , three separate receipts of payment of IDC charges of Rs.1,50,000/-, developer-buyer agreement, undertaking/no due certificate and emails.

3. As already stated, the OP failed to file the reply despite service of notices at its Noida address, as  mentioned in array of parties and for want of appearance it was proceeded ex-parte.

4. At the stage of evidence, the complainant led his exclusive evidence by way of affidavit, it is on the lines of complaint as well as the documents filed with complaint have also been proved. The complainant also filed separate certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, 1872 for proof of electronic record.

5. The complainant filed written arguments, which are blend of pleading and evidence. It was followed by oral submissions by Shri Anuj Arora, Advocate for complainant.

6.1.  The contentions advance on behalf of complainant are considered keeping in view the narration given in the evidence coupled with the documentary record, which has been proved by the complainant. In brief, the facts and documents proved by complainant are those facts, feature and record, which has already detailed in paragraph nos. 2 and 4 above. The complainant has already paid the entire consideration amount and other charges. The paragraph 9 of developer-buyer agreement also acknowledges receipt of entire consideration amount by the OP from the complainant in respect of allotted plot. The complainant has also proved that IDC charges have also been paid to OP against three receipts and no due certificate was also issued by OP. The paragraphs 10 and 21 of the developer-buyer agreement also covenant for handing over the possession within reasonable time or on receipt of entire consideration amount. The emails record also confirms that the complainant has not been handed over possession of booked plot. The complainant has also asked return of paid amount with interest.   There is no material in the evidence proved by the complaint, to infer anything against the complainant or to demerit the case of complainant. The testimony of the complainant remained unchallenged.

            To say, the complainant had booked a plot in the project of OP, for that purposes the complainant first paid booking amount of Rs. 1250,000/- and then paid entire consideration amount, the total amount paid towards the allotted plot was Rs.5,90,000/-. The complainant further paid demanded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards IDC charges from 12.07.2016 to 23.11.2016. However, despite receiving the all payments, the possession was  not delivered to the complainant, it also appears from the record that possession of booked plot was not ready and available to be delivered to the complainant.  It amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in services. Therefore, it is held that complainant has proved allegations and his case against OP.

6.2. Now the next issue for determination is whether the complainant should be allowed in substantive prayer or alternate relief, the circumstances are speaking themselves that OP is ex-parte as well as current status of project is not known and it may involve further investigation to explore about the project, which will be time consuming process apart from investment of the energy, time, resources and other off-shoots. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the alternate prayer of return of all paid amounts to complainant Hence the complainant is held entitled for return  total amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- [viz. Rs.5,90,000/- paid consideration amount of plot + Rs.1,50,000/- IDC charges].

6.3.  The complainant claims interest of 12 % pa but there is no agreed rate of interest as the documents proved do not contain any such clause, therefore, interest at the rate of 9% pa [from the date of last payment as on 23.11.2016 complaint till realization of amount] will meet both ends of justice.

6.4. The complainant seeks compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of harassment and agony, costs and other relief. The complainant has not established his financial status, income or sources of income for the purposes of evaluating the compensation amount. However, the circumstances are speaking that he faced difficulty, inconvenience. other harassment and un-certainty even till filing of the complaint, therefore, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is allowed in his favour and against the OP.  Since, the complainant was constraint to initiate the process of this complaint for redressal of his grievances, therefore, for the purposes of other relief claimed, cost is determined and quantified as Rs. 5,500/-, which stand allowed in his favour and against OP.

7.  Thus, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP to return/ pay amount of Rs.7,40,000/- [i.e.Rs.5,90,000/-+ Rs.1,50,000/-] along-with simple interest @ 9%pa from 23.11.2016 till realization of amount;  apart from to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- & costs of Rs.5,500/- to complainant. 

            OP is also directed to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of this order. In case amount is not paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of order, then rate of interest will be 11% per annum on amount of Rs.7,40,000/-. 

8.  Announced on this 20th September, 2024 [भाद्र 29, साका 1946].  Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.            

[ijs-119]

                                                            ***