CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

   Case No.329/2022

Umesh Kumar

S/o Puttu Lal

House No.1321, Gali No.14, Block-I

Sangam Vihar, Pushpa Bhawan

South Delhi

Vs.

1. Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

Having Registered Office at :

N.H.-2, Farah, Mathura

Uttar Pradesh-281122.

2.Bipin Singh Yadav, Director

Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

N.H.-2, Farah, Mathura

Uttar Pradesh-281122.

3.Manjeet Kumar, Director

Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

N.H.-2, Farah, Mathura

Uttar Pradesh-281122.

4.Rajkumar Yadav, Director

Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

N.H.-2, Farah, Mathura

Uttar Pradesh-281122.

5.Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, Director

Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

1004, Ram Ji Dwara, Chatta Bazar, Mathura-281001

Uttar Pradesh, India.

6.Jitndra Bohra, Director

Kalptaru Buildtech Corporation Limited

1343, Gatashram Teela, Mathura-281001

Uttar Pradesh, India.

7.KBCL India Limited

Having Registered Office at:

Uttar Pradesh 281122.                                      ..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                                                            Date of Institution-10.11.2022

Date of Order-08.03.2024

                                                O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service in part of OP in not delivering the plot to the complainant.

2.  The complainant booked four plots with  OP-1 as a project was launched under the following scheme:  

3.  The complainant alleges that relying on the promises of OP-1, he has booked 4 plots measuring 300 sq. Yards.  As per terms and conditions, the complainant continues to pay Rs.2900/- for each from 24.03.2013.  The complainant further submits he was promised that after all the instalments are paid, he could take refund of money paid in lieu of plot which would amount to Rs.88,000/- for an investment of Rs.60,000/-.

4. The complainant further alleges that OP-1 and its agent refused to hand over either the plot or refund the amount deposited despite repeated request by complaint.  In January 2022, the complainant visited the office of OP-1 at Gurgaon but found it closed.  The complainant prays for refund of entire amount paid i.e.3,52,000/- with 12% interest, 1,00,000/- as compensation.

5. Notice was issued to OP-1.  But none appeared.  OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.3.23. 

6. The complainant has filed the following evidence by way of affidavit:

1. Copy of ID is exhibited as CW-1/1.
2. Copy of receipts of payments of all instalments are Exhibited as CW-1/2.

7. The Commission has considered the pleadings and material on record.  The registration certificate bearing no.1666648 dated 24.3.2013 reveals that a receipt for plot size of 300 sq. yards was issued in the name of the complainant.  The complainant had to pay a quarterly instalment of Rs.2900/- till 24.3.2018.  The due date of instalment in the said receipt is given as 24.6.2013 and date of last instalment is given as 24.12.2017.  The date of realisable cost at the end of term is given as 24.3.2018 and Assured Realisable cost at end of term is given as Rs.88,000/-.

8. Similar registration certificate bearing No., 1666650, 1666651 1666656 have been placed on record with same condition and stipulations. 

9. The complainant has filed receipt dated 24.03.2013, 24.6.2013, 12.9.2013, 24.3.2014, 24.6.2014, 24.9.2014, 26.12.2014, 23.3.2015, 23.6.2015   23.10.2015, 24.3.2016, 24.6.2016, 24.9.2016, 24.12.2016, 24.3.2017, 24.6.2017, 24.9.2017.  Altogether 17 receipts for Rs.2900/- each have been filed for each of four plots.

10. The registration certificate shows that the complainant has booked 4 plots on payment of quarterly instalment.  The complainant has paid Rs.1,97,200/- (17*4*2900).  OP-1 failed to appear and rebut the contention of complainant.

11.  OP-1 has not stated that the possession of the said plot/flat has been handed over to the complainant or the construction/development is in progress.  The complainant has not received any possession till date.  The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure V/s TevorD’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seeks refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation.

12. Hence we find OP-1 guilty of unfair trade practice in not giving possession or refunding the amount received from the complainant.  We direct OP-1 to pay-

1. Rs.1,97,200/- with 9% interest from date of last payment i.e. 24.9.2017 till realisation
2. Rs.20,000/- of compensation for mental harassment and physical inconvenience
3. Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

13. File be consigned to record room.  Order be uploaded and complied within 30 days.