Delhi

North East

CC/20/2017

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GREEN CITY BUILDTECH - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 20/17

In the matter of:

	Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Bishambar Nath Gyani R/o 319, Tower 5, GH-42 Sector-56 Gurgaon, Haryana	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s. Green City Buildtech Limited, through its Managing Director Having its Registered office at 829 Ansals Laxmi Deep, Laxmi Nagar District Centre Vikas Marg Delhi   Also at: Corporate Office A-3 sector 59 Noida-201301	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

13.01.2017 16.01.2019 16.01.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Facts germane as made out in the present complaint are that the complainant had booked a 1200 sq. ft. residential flat in Project Solitaire Green at Dharuhera with OP, the residential project to come up at the said site in 2006. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque no. 774092 dated 02.12.2006 drawn on Bank of India to OP as registration amount acknowledged by OP vide receipt no. 2864 dated 26.12.2006. Further on OP’s demand complainant paid another sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- to OP by 2007, acknowledgment of receipt of which was made by OP vide its letters dated 25.01.2008 and 14.11.2008 to the complainant whereby the OP had intimated of completion of the sample flat in the said project and completion of Raft Foundation in the said project and raised demand of second and third installment. Therefore, as against the total sale consideration of                               Rs, 18,60,000/-  (1200 sq. ft. @ Rs. 1550/- per sq. ft.), the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- to OP between 2006 -2007. However, the complainant acquired knowledge that OP had put the development of the said project on hold for which he issued a letter dated 28.05.2009 to OP enquiring about the status of construction amongst other queries. However, the OP neither raised any further demand of payments nor was in a position to execute the project or deliver possession of the said apartment to the complainant. The complainant followed with OP several times but after getting no response from OP, was forced to lodge a complaint with E.O.W cell of Delhi Police vide complaint dated 10.02.2015 and was lastly constrained to file the present complaint praying for issuing of directions against the OP for refund of Rs. 6,25,000/- with 12% p.a. interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for failure by OP to provide the said flat causing mantle torture, harassment and agony along with cost of complaint.
2. The complainant has attached copy of receipt no. 2864 dated 26.12.2006 issued by OP for acknowledgment of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid towards the initial booking amount for the said flat, copies of letter dated 25.01.2008 and 14.11.2008 by the complainant for demand of second and third installments, copy of letter dated 28.05.2009 by complainant to OP enquiring about status of construction and copy of complaint dated 10.02.2015 but complainant against OP with E.O.W., New Delhi.
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 17.01.2017 which was returned unserved with postal remark ‘Left’. Thereafter, on complainant furnishing fresh address of OP/residential address, notice was served thereon on 24.05.2017 but non appeared on behalf of OP and was therefore proceeded against  ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2017.
4. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 22.01.2018 and 07.05.2018 respectively.  
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and perused the evidence placed on record which has gone unrebutted due to non appearance by OP. There is neither any allotment letter nor any agreement between the parties and it is evident that the OP has acknowledged the receipt of  Rs. 6,25,000/- in 2008 from the complainant toward part payment of the sale consideration of the said flat after which it stopped raising any demand which in consonance with the averment of the complainant that the project was possibly stalled. The non refund in such an event of abandoning of project and withholding the deposit of buyer by OP is a classic example of unfair trade practice.
6. Till date, the OP has not offered possession of the same to the complainant and also not refused to deliver position and therefore is a clear case of continuing cause of action as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meerut Development Authority v. M K Gupta IV (2012) CPJ 12 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such a case buyer has a recurrent cause for filing a complaint for non delivery of possession of plot.
7. After appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record we are of the considered view that the complaint be allowed on merits against the OP on ground of unfair trade practice of wrongfully misappropriating/withholding fund of the complainant without offering him possession of the flat and offering no allotment letter or entering into any agreement for allotment thereby being completely non-committal about any time line for completion of project and handing over possession.
8. We therefore direct the OP to refund the sum of Rs. 6,25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till realization. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of  Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain.
9. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on 16.01.2019

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member