Delhi

StateCommission

A/330/2017

SUPERTECH LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

JODHA SINGH RAWAT & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

SHUBHAM AGGARWAL

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments: 27.07.17

          Date of Decision:     08.08.17

 

First Appeal No. 330/2017

In the matter of:

M/s Supertech Ltd.

1114 Hemkunt Chamber

89, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019

Through Managing Director                                                             ……..Appellant

 

                                                            Versus

 

1. Shri Jodha Singh Rawat

S/o late Shri M.S.Rawat

 

2. Smt. Yashoda Rawat

W/o Shri Jodha Singh Rawat

C/o LIC of India, Branch 311

Rajdendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place

New Delhi-110008.                                                                …….Respondent

                                               

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P.GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

          OP has challenged order dated 09.05.17 passed by District Forum X in CC No. 265/13 vide which the complaint was allowed and OP was directed to allot flat, send demand letter for balance amount at old rate without any interest. The complainant was to pay balance amount and OP was to deliver possession within one month and get the documents executed in favour of complainant. OP was further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation  and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

2.       Facts giving rise to the complaints were that complainants were allotted flat No. 502 in Tower No. C-11 at Eco Village-II, Noida Extension vide letter dated 23.12.10.  Complainants were sanctioned loan of Rs.16,00,000/- by LIC Housing Finance which released a sum of Rs. 1,91,900/- in favour of OP. There was some problem regarding NOIDA extension as execution of land was challenged in court and due to the same OP did not make any correspondence with the complaints.  On 24.07.11 complainant came to know from friends that OP had given status of affected flats at Noida Extension on its website and has also given option for alternate flat.  On 31.07.11 complainant sent a letter of acceptance to OP by speed post as they find that their flat was affected and they were offered flat No. 502 in Tower C-12 at Eco village-II, Noida Extension.  Op had asked allottees to send their letters of acceptance before 31.07.11.

3.       Complainant was transferred from LIC Branch, Unit-113, Jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi to LIC Branch, Unit 311, Rajendera Bhawan, Rajendera Place, New Delhi.  It was communicated to OP vide E-mail dated 29.06.12.  On 17.02.13 complainant happened to visit his previous LIC Branch, Unit-113, Jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi and found a letter from OP dated 09.11.12.  In that letter OP mentioned complainant’s new LIC Branch, Unit 311 in lieu of old LIC Branch, Unit-113. Rest of the address was left as old one. This shows that OP has received intimation about change of address but did not correct the same it its record in entirety.  Mere change of branch unit number without change of location caused hindrance in communication.

4.       Later on problem was solved by Hon’ble Supreme Court, OP resumed construction work at Noida Extn. and started fresh booking for left over flat.  One such instance is of flat No. 1905 in Tower No A-2 at Eco village-II allotted to Mr. Deepak Rawat, son-in law of complainant. There was no reason for neglecting the complainant. Complainant handed over the copy of their letter dated 08.04.13 and officials of OP verbally confirmed that their flat was still  intact, decision would be taken by Board of Directors on 15.04.13.On the very next day i.e. 12.04.13 OP sent e-mail to the complainant stating that provisional booking/allotment of their flat was cancelled with immediate effect and requested to take refund of the deposited amount against cancelled booking. Complainant replied the same vide e-mail on 13.04.13 stating that letter dated 08.04.13 has not been read thoroughly and requested OP to reconsider the matter.

5.       OP filed a reply stating that acquisition of land for the project was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 12.05.11 which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.07.11 therefore the flat booked by buyer including flat No. C-11/502, Eco village-II(booked by complainant originally) was cancelled by order of court.  The complainant was defaulter in making payment as they failed to adhere to payment schedule.  The total amount paid by them was Rs. 3,94,573/-.  OP clearly stated in letter dated 09.11.12 that there was some typographic error but it reached destination.

6.       Whole controversy lie here, how a letter sent at the address of jeewan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi could be delivered to the complainant in Rajendera Bhawan, Rajendera Place, New Delhi, is a moot question. The discrepancy is so wide that postman could not find out the latter address by any clue. Again the question is how OP can say that letter reached the destination.    They have not filed any proof of delivery.  It is their imagination only that letter must have reached the complainant.  The complainant had already mentioned in the complaint that on 17.02.13 i.e. after about more than three months of letter dated 09.11.12,  complainant happened to visit his old LIC Branch where he found the letter.  This negativate the possibility of letter reaching the complainant at new address despite mentioning of old address on the letter.

7.       The District Forum found that letter dated 09.11.12 relied upon by the OP clinches the entire issue. In that letter the OP stated that in the interest of esteemed customers, they requested the customers to provide copy of acceptance letter sent by them as per time frame providing an offer for alternative unit made by OP website.  Thus by that time the acceptance of the complainant for alternative unit was intact.

8.       In this background the sending of e-mail dated 12.04.13 mentioning that booking of complainant was cancelled is nothing but unfair trade practice.  OP could not discriminate the complainant and remaining allottees by allotting flat to remaining allottees and denying the same to complaint.  This is why the District Forum allowed the complaint.

9.       During the arguments in hearing on admission we asked the counsel for the appellant as to what is wrong in the approach of district forum. Can the appellant state that they did not give alternative allotment to any of its customers?  He could not answer the same.

10.     In the above background we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the district forum.  The appeal is dismissed in limini

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

 

sbm