| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VIIDISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO. CC/100/16 Date of Institution: - 15.03.2016 Order Reserved on:- 05.04.2023 Date of Decision: - 06.04.2023 IN THE MATTER OF: Sh. Manoj Aggarwal, Son of Shri Shri Niwas R/o 23 U.B., Second Floor, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi - 110007 ….. Complainant VERSUS - Klazina Consultants Limited
Through its Directors K-37C, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110048 - Klazina Consultants Limited
Through its Directors #204, Tower A, IRIS Tech Park, Sohna Road Sector 48, Gurgaon- 122001 - M/s Viraaj Infrastructure,
B-15, Second Floor, Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi –110018 -
(Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member) - Briefly stated facts of the Complaint are that the Complainant booked a plot in April 2013 for a total cost of Rs.8,00,000/-, plot no.124 registration no. 0413-127-GR at 'Gateway Residency', Neemrama of the OPs The OPs assured the Complainant of possession of his fully developed plot within two years from the booking date, i.e. by the end of April 2015.
- The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as per the agreement and as demanded by the OPS on various dates. The Complainant states he paid Rs.11,000/- on 30.04.2013. Rs.1,21,000/- on 14.05.2013, Rs.2,88,000/- on 04.06.2013. He has annexed the copies of the receipts corresponding to the payment on page no. 9,10 & 11 with his Complaint. The OPs issued a letter dated 27.04.2013 confirming the provisional registration of his plot measuring 160 sq. yds. (app.) @5000 per square yard in their upcoming project "Gateway Residency" at S-N-B, Rajasthan.
- In December 2014, the Complainant visited the site of the plot and found that no development had taken place at the site. He immediately sent a letter dated 26.12.2014 to the OPs informing him about the discrepancies found at the proposed site and also sent emails to the officials of the OP's pointing out the delay. In reply, the OPs allegedly accepted the delay in the development of the plot vide email dated 07.01.2015 and offered the Complainant an option not to release any further payment till the possession of the plot. The OPs also agreed not to charge any penal interest on the due amount. (Page no.17of the Complaint)
- The Complainant thereafter sentemails dated 20.05.2015, 25.05.2015 and 05.06.2015 to the OPs requesting them to clarify the updated status of the development, acquisition and possession of the plot by the OPs. The OPs, however, failed to reply to the Complainant's queries. He then sent a legal notice on 25.08.2015 asking the OPs to cancel the allotment of the plot and refund the entire amount paid towards the cost of the plot along with interest @18% p.a.
- The Complainant states that in response to the legal Notice, the OPs denied all the allegations and advised the Complainant to contact the accounts department of the OPs to complete the refund process. When the OPs officials did not process the refund, the Complainant, through his father, filed an F.I.R. bearing no. 443-2016 with the S.H.O., P.S. Sadar Thana, Gurgaon, Haryana. (Exhibit-CW-A)
- The Complainant, therefore, filed the present Complaint before the District Forum, Sheikh Sarai. Alleging Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He prayed for a refund of the amount paid by him of Rs.4,20,000/- along with interest @18% compounded monthly,Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation charges.
- Notice was issued to the OPs. The OPs was proceeded ex-parte when the Complainant filed the proof of adequate service with the requisite affidavit and original postal receipts vide order dated 12.07.2016. The Complainant thereafter filed his ex-parte evidence reiterating what he had already averred in his Complaint, along with written arguments. The present Complaint was heard by our Ld. Predecessorswho reserved the present Complaint for orders. However,since the order could not be pronounced, the matter was de-reserved, and Notice was issued to both parties to re-hear final argumentswhen we joined. Despite Notice, none has appeared since 2021 to address the final argument.None appeared today for the Complainant or the OPs. Hence, we felt it expedient to adjudicate this Complaint, considering the long pendency of this case.
- Since the OPs are ex-parte, there is no reason to disbelieve the Complainant's unrefuted and uncontroverted testimony. The Complainant has exhibited all the documents to substantiate his claim. Exhibit CW-1/1 is the letter dated 27.04.2013 confirming the plot by OP-1. Exhibit CW-1/2 (Colly) are the copies of receipts dated 03.06.2013, 27.04.2013 and 27.04.2013 amounting to Rs. 4,20,000/- towards the plot cost issued by OP-1. Exhibit CW-1/3 (Colly) is a copy of the letter dated 22.06.2013 regarding the provisional registration of the plot. The Complainant has also placed on record the copy of the Legal Notice dated 26.08.2015 (Exhibit CW-1/4) and its reply Exhibit-CW-1/5. Exhibit-CW-1/6 (Colly) are copies of the emails exchanged between the contesting parties.
- Based on the documents on record, we find that the OPs is deficient in service as he neither refunded the Complainant's paid amount nor appeared before us to contest the Complaint despite adequate service for reasons best known to him.
- Therefore, allowing the present Complaint, we direct the OPs to refund to the Complainant Rs.4,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of this Complaint, i.e., 15.03.2016 till realisation. The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs 10,000 towards mental agony and harassment, which will include litigation costs.
- Copy of the order to be supplied to the parties free of cost.
- Order be complied with within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
- Thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.
Order Pronounced on 06.04.2023 at 3.30 pm. | |
