Haryana

StateCommission

CC/181/2016

MANOHAR SIKRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HERITAGE COTTAGES PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS DEEP

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.181 of 2016

                                                       Date of Institution: 12.07.2016                            Date of Decision: 17.08.2016

 

Manohar Sikri R/o H.No.14, Pandit Park, Opp. Geeta Colony Police Station, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Heritage Cottages Pvt. Ltd., (A Private Limited company, through its Managing Director), R1& 2, Jungpura-B, New delhi-110014

2^nd Address

B-123, Green Field Colony, Faridabad-121003.

 

          …..Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Vikas Deep, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It is alleged by the complainant that he booked apartment  No. D-703 with the opposite party (O.P.) in the year 2007. He purchased this plot from Kawal Arora on 16.01.2013 and the amount of Rs.22,42,500/- deposited by him (Kawal Arora) was diverted to his account. Thereafter OP neither executed any agreement nor possession is delivered.  Action is initiated against the directors of the O.P. for playing fraud with the allottees. So O.P. be directed to refund Rs.22,42,500/- alongwith interest.

2.      Heard.

3.      As per facts mentioned above it is clear that the complainant is not original allottee and is subsequent purchaser.  He purchased this plot from Kawal Arora on 16.01.2013 which was confirmed by O.P. on 24.01.2013.  At that time licence of the O.P. was already suspended and even then complainant purchased this plot.  He purchased this flat knowing fully well  all the developments. So, he could not ask for the refund of the amount at this stage, when time was not essence of contract for delivery of possession.  Had he executed any buyer’s agreement with O.P. and builder had agreed to deliver possession within stipulated time then it would have been a different matter.  It is alleged by O.P. in reply of the notice that 80% construction was already complete and steps were being taken to get the licence revived.  So complaint is pre-mature at this stage and the same is hereby dismissed as such.

 

August, 17th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.