DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.26/2020

QUORUM:

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this Judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP  alleging deficiency in service in not giving the possession of the booked shop. 

1. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in the complaint are that on the basis of advertisement given by OP w.r.t. to its NPX Project situated at Plot No.1, Block-C, Sector-153 Noida, Uttar Pradesh, the Complainant booked one shop in the commercial unit for earning his livelihood and was allotted a shop i.e F-95, with super Area measuring 332.82 sq. ft. in the said project on 07.08.2010 and he paid an amount of Rs.9,46,874/- as full and final payment at the same time.   As per the allotment agreement, the respondent was supposed to deliver the possession within 36 months but respondent did nothing however on 22.01.2014 Complainant received a call from OP for inspecting the site and Complainant accordingly visited the site and space was shown to him but the unit was not same as it was booked by the Complainant, therefore he visited the office of the respondent and after a period of three years the respondent had given an alternative unit i.e. Unit No.UG-10, which under compelling circumstances was accepted by the Complainant and OP then demanded Rs.65,000/- and the same was also paid and accordingly the OP got the Registry of the Unit in the name of the Complainant on 16.03.2018 however the possession was not given.  The Complainant also visited the office of the OP but no physical possession was given. The complainant had sent so many letters and emails to the respondent thereby asking him to transfer the possession but the OP did not give any satisfactory reply and not giving the possession amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by OP.  Not only this even the basic amenities like electricity connection, water supply, water drainage and sewer line, Fire Fighting System were also not in place.  The Complainant also sought possession in July 2019 but the same was not given and even the possession was to be given in 6 months failing which the OP had to pay a penalty @ Rs.5/- sq. ft. which is also not being given to the Complainant and therefore Complainant has filed the present complaint case against OP thereby seeking directions to the OP to pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and also to pay interest on the deposited amount @24% p.a. and OP be directed to handover the physical possession of the Unit No.UG-10, NPX Project situated at Plot No.1, Block-C, Sector-153 Noida, Uttar Pradesh with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. 
2. The OP was served on 25.04.2022 but no written statement was filed and even none had been appearing on behalf of OP  and as such he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 01.06.2022. 
3. Complainant has filed evidence along with the documents i.e. Sub Lease Deed executed in his favour by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority through its authorized person and also by the authorized person of the OP Authority and the Complainant. 
4. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. 
5. As far as paying the compensation or penalty @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. to the complainant is concerned there is no specific clause in the agreement from which it can be inferred that the OP was require to pay compensation @ Rs.5/- sq. ft. if the possession is not handed over to the complainant within 36 months.  The counsel for complainant has relied upon the Anneuxre issued by OP where it is stated that OP would pay penalty @ Rs.5/- sq. ft. of the area booked by the complainant if company is unable to commence the project.  Admittedly, the project has been commenced and even completed and even the sub sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant and therefore this clause is not applicable to the complainant.  Similarly, clause 17 and 18 as is being relied upon by the counsel for complainant do not come to the rescue of the complainant for claiming compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq. ft. on the ground of not handing over the possession.  Therefore, this relief cannot be granted to the complainant.   
6. As far as not handing over the possession is concerned the contention of the complainant is well found and although the sub lease deed has been executed by the OP in concurrence with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the application of OP, yet there is no condition stipulated in this said sub lease deed to show as to whether possession has been given or not.  Therefore, OP is deficient in providing this service to the complainant and is accordingly directed to handover the possession of the premises Unit No.UG-10, NPX Project situated at Plot No.1, Block-C, Sector-153 Noida, Uttar Pradesh physically to the complainant.  The next relief is that he is claiming the interest @ 24% p.a. for the purpose of depriving the complainant from using accommodation is not supported with any document therefore this prayer cannot be granted.  However, since the OP is deficient in providing the possession within time a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- is allowed.    

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which OP would pay an interest @ 9% on Rs.35,000/- till the date of realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 04.01.2024.