Delhi

North East

CC/183/2015

Mrs. Anita Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFI Realtty Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jun 2020

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.  183/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Anita Dhiman W/o Shri Kuldeep Chand R/o:- D-10/14, Dilshad Colony Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1         2           3	IFI Realty (P) Ltd. 26A Pocket B, Ground Floor Mayur Vihar Phase II Near LSC, Delhi   Dhiraj Sharma (Director) IFI Realty (P) Ltd. 30A Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase II Near LSC, Delhi   Neeraj Sharma (Director) IFI Realty (P) Ltd. 30A Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar, Phase II Near LSC, Delhi	Opposite Parties

 

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

22.05.2015 23.06.2020 23.06.2020

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Succinctly put, the facts in the present case are that the complainant had booked a residential plot admeasuring 100 sq.yd with OP1’s upcoming Buddh Enclave Project at Kondli Bangaar, Noida U.P. in May 2012 for a total sale consideration of  Rs. 17,70,000/- against which complainant paid Rs. 6,80,000/- in vide cheques No. 4569904 dated 09.05.2012 and Cheque No. 459909 dated 04.06.2012 both drawn on PNB for a sum of  Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 4,80,000/- respectively. The OP acknowledged the said payments vide receipt numbers 615 dated 16.05.2012 and receipt no. 798 dated 01.08.2012. Thereafter parties entered into Memo of Understanding (MOU) dated 24.06.2012 which inter alia stipulated vide clause 9 that in case the customer i.e. complainant herein exits the scheme between 09.11.2012 to 09.12.2012, she would be eligible for receiving principal amount alongwith assured benefit of Rs. 2,00,000/- within 45 days of completion of six months period. The complainant vide letter dated 30.11.2012 to OP1 requested for transmission of the assured amount on withdrawal of plot and vide endorsement made by OP1 on the said hand written letter, OP1 assured “we will return the profit after deducting TDS”. The OPs however only paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 01.03.2013 vide cheque no. 345819 to the complainant and failed to pay the balance amount despite receipt of several communication made by the complainant to OPs in this regard. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of direction against the OPs to return the principal amount of  Rs. 6,80,000/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- being balance amount with interest @24% thereon from the date of payment till realization and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. Complainant has attached copy of Agreement for Proposed CLU of residential plot in OP’s Buddh Enclave Project laying down the payment plan and acknowledging receipt of booking amount of Rs. 6,80,000/-, copy of welcome letter dated 19.05.2012 issued by OPs to complainant for booking the plot and laying down schedule of payment, copy of receipts dated 16.05.2012 and 01.08.2012 acknowledging receipt of Rs. 6,80,000/- from the complainant, copy of MOU dated 24.06.2012 and copy of application dated 30.11.2012 by the complainant to OP for withdrawal of plot and request for refund of principal with assured benefit as per the MOU.          
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 25.05.2015 and were served in October 2015 on fresh addresses submitted by the complainant. OP entered appearance on 23.11.2015. However none of the OPs either appeared thereafter or filed written statement and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.02.2016.
4. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit alongwith written arguments in reassertion/reiteration of grievance against OPs. However in the said pleadings, complainant made corrections of amount claimed from OP as Rs. 7,30,000/-. On directions of this Forum issued on 11.05.2018, complainant was directed to amend the prayer clause and relevant paragraphs in complaint pertaining to quantum of relief claimed, which order was complied with by the complainant on 30.07.2016. Complainant were further directed vide order dated 01.04.2019 to file the bank statement in proof of receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the refundable amount. The complainant filed the same on 18.09.2019.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

Undisputedly, the OPs had received Rs. 6,80,000/- from the complainant towards the plot in question and had paid / returned Rs. 1,50,000/- out of the principal amount of Rs. 6,80,000/-. However, it was also under contractual obligation as per the MOU to give the assured benefit of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant for exiting the scheme from 09.11.2012 to 09.12.2012 since the complainant had withdrawn her booking falling within the said period i.e. on 30.11.2012. Therefore OPs were liable to return Rs. 7,30,000/- to the complainant which they failed to and which act is gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The allegation against the OPs remains unrebutted due to no defence having come forth from OPs. We therefore allow the present complaint against OPs and direct OPs to refund the balance principal amount of Rs. 5,30,000/- alongwith assured benefit amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- totaling Rs. 7,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization to the complainant. We further direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation charges. Let the order be complied by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 23.06.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member