Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/208/2012

NIKESH KHANDELWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HINDUSTAN BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/208/2012
 
1. NIKESH KHANDELWAL
C-37, SARITA VIHAR, ND 76
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HINDUSTAN BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.
2E/4,2nd & 3rd FLOOR, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., ND 55
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

ORDER
Per Nipur Chandna , Member
Complainant applied for the registration cum booking of plot in the
project “New York City” at Mumbai on 22/1/2007 of the OPCompany.  It
is alleged by the complainant that he had booked the plot of 400 Sq.
Yards @ 1450 Per Sq. Yd. and had made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the
OPtill  May 2008 against the booking of the aforesaid plot vide cheque
no. 0800622 dated 24/01/2007 and vide cheque no.  006242 dt. 11/7/2008
which was duly encashed by the OP.  It is further alleged by the
complainant despite depositing the substantial amount with the OPhe
did not get any information about
Page 1. CC/208/2012
the progress and development of the said plot. The complainant made
personel visits at the site and he came to know that in reality the
OPs haven’t done any progress in that project there.  It is further
alleged by the complainant that the OPhad issued him letter dated
10.7.2012 through which OPmade a demands of Rs. 3,24,000/- and
threatened the complainant that if he did not fulfill the aforesaid
demand then his earnest money will be forfeited.  The complainant
therefore approached this forum for redressal of his grievance.
The complainant has been contested by the OP. .  OPhas filed a written
statement wherein it has denied any deficiency  on its part.  It is
stated by the OPthat it is the complainant who is trying to rescind
the terms and conditions of the application form thereby not making
the payment of further installments in view of the demand raised by
them.
The complainant has filed his evidence by way of  his affidavit .  He
has placed on record the receipts of the payment made by him i.e. Ex.
CW1/1 (Colly) . He has also placed on recoprd the demand letter dated
10-7-2012 i.e. Ex  CW1/2 .  The complainant has also placed on record
the legal notice along with its postal receipt i.e. Ex CW1/4 send by
him to the OP.
Sh. Ajay Chhabra, Managing Director of the OP  filed his evidence by
way of affidavit.
We have heard the arguments advanced at  bar and have persued the record.
The counsel for the complainant has placed on record the demand
letters sent by the OPto the complainant.  He had contended that
despite receiving the demand letters, complainant had failed to fulfil
the demand raised by the OPregarding the aforesaid plot, as such
complainant is not entitled to get any relief and the complainant is
liable to be dismissed.
Page 2. CC/208/2012

The OPhas placed on  record a copy of the advance registration form,
which also contains the terms and conditions for allotment. Condition
no 7 which is reproduced as under is essential for the disposal of
this complaint.

Condition No. 7
That in case the company is not in a position to make offer of
allotment for the plot/ flat  villa within a period of 12 months from
the date of my/ our application for any reason whatsoever, we shall
only be entitled to refund of the advance for provisional registration
paid by us along with simple interest @ 10  % p.a. from the date of
payment of such advance, subject to my / our giving you 30 days notice
of the same.
As per condition no. 7, OPwas liable to make an offer of allotment of
plot to the complainant within 12 months from the date of application.
But till dateOPhas not made any offer of allotment of plot to the
complainant and as such has violated the terms and conditions of the
allotment.  The project has also not made any head  way despite the
fact that the complainant had made the desposits in the year 2007.
In these circumstances , we hold OPguilty of deficiency in service and
direct it as under:-
1 . To refund a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant along with
interest @ 10% from the date of deposit till payment.
2.To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation
towards mental pain and agony.


Page 3. CC/208/2012

3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigiation cost.
The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply
with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution
of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KAPOOR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. NIPUR CHANDNA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.