Delhi

North East

CC/341/2015

MRS. Kamlesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/ s Octagon Builders & Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2019

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. 341/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Kamlesh Gupta R/o 4/2400, Gali No.12, Bihari Colony Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Octagon Builders & Pvt Ltd Off:- 78, Hargovind Enclave, Delhi-110092.   Also at:- M/s Octagon Builders & Pvt Ltd H-218, Sector-63, Noida, U.P-201301	Opposite Parties

 

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

15.09.2015 08.02.2019 08.02.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The facts in a nutshell urged by the complainant in the present complaint are that she had booked a plot at upcoming “Santour City” project of OP at Dehradun in 2007 on OPs representation and inducement to book the same. However, subsequently the OP failed to launch the above project and offered an alternate plot bearing no. CC/4-7 admeasuring 160 Sq. Yd at Santour City project Haridwar for a total Basic Sale Price (BSP) of Rs. 6,38,400/-. The parties to the present complaint entered into deed of agreement dated 30.09.2008 with respect to the allocation of said plot duly signed by both the parties whereby the OP acknowledged payment of Rs. 2,74,000/- made by complainant to OP by the said date from 01.04.2007 to 25.08.2008. Vide the said agreement the OP had promised completion of construction and allocation of allotment including grace period by end of 2010 failing which it would refund the amount paid by the allottee with simple interest of 8% p.a. thereon. The complainant made payment of eighteen EMIs from 15.11.2008 to 11.10.2013 to the tune of Rs. 7,11,854/- thereby in total complainant paid a sum of Rs. 9,85,854/- to OP and the OP issued NOC dated 16.01.2014 in favour of the complainant acknowledging receipt of all payments including Land Cost, Development Cost etc with no dues remaining and no demand to be raised in future. The complainant questioned the OP about the status of execution of the registry of the plot since she was shocked on visiting the site of the project where she found no development but OP never gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant, feeling aggrieved with illegal, uncalled for, unfair and unlawful act of the OP, was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prayed for issuance of directions to the OP to either execute the registry of the plot booked/allotted or refund the deposit amount in lieu thereof alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. thereon from the date of deposit till realization alongwith compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of deed of agreement executed between complainant and OP on 30.09.2008 with terms and conditions duly signed by both the parties, copy of bank statement for payments made to OP vide cheques towards booking amount and EMI’s, copy of correspondence dated 15.04.2008 from OP to complainant for offering alternate plot at Santour City Haridwar instead of Santour City Dehradun, copy of letters dated 01.09.2008, 20.09.2008, 31.01.2009 from OP to complainant apprising complainant of allotment of plot at its Haridwar project and progress report of ongoing construction, copies of receipts issued by OP in favour of complainant from 01.12.2008 till 28.05.2010 and copy of cheque No. 746553 dated 11.10.2013 for Rs. 3,67,706/- drawn on SBI Shahdara Branch, Delhi paid towards 18^th EMI acknowledging payments of 18 EMIs and copy of NOC dated 16.01.2014 issued by OP in favour of the complainant for registry of plot no. H-1033 measuring 199.60Sq. Yd at its Santour City Haridwar Project.

2. Notice was issued on OP on 06.10.2015 and was served on 20.10.2015 at both its Delhi and Noida address however none appeared on behalf of OP and therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.01.2016.
3. The complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments on 14.03.2016 and 23.03.2017 respectively. Thereafter the matter was reserved by the erstwhile bench on 05.07.2017. However, the matter was relisted on change on bench and the complainant was directed vide order dated 25.01.2018 to place on record complete chart of payment with respect to the said plot paid to OP from booking till last payment. The complainant complied with the said order on 22.10.2018 with supporting affidavit after which arguments were heard and order was reserved.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel of the complainant and have perused the documentary evidence placed on record.

The complainant has placed on record copy of deed of agreement and the receipts issued by OP acknowledging payment ofRs. 2,74,000/- made by complainant to OP before execution of deed of agreement by 25.08.2008 and 18 EMIs from 15.11.2008 till 11.10.2013 to the tune of Rs. 7,11,854/- with grand total ofRs. 9,85,854/- which to our astonishment is in excess of the basic sale price of the said plot which was valued at Rs. 6,38,400/- as per the deed of agreement and OP never came forth to explain or justify the excess amount charged from the complainant for the said plot and under what head was such excess charge levied. Most unfortunately, the complainant still could not get the possession of the said plot from OP. OP failed to appear or rebut the allegation levelled against it by the complainant in the present complaint due to willful non appearance. The conduct of OP in the present case as can be seen from the documents before us is nothing but unfair trade practice under Section 2 (1) (r) of Consumer Protection Act in having unlawfully utilized the sum paid by the complainant from 2007 till 2013 and depriving the complainant of her legal entitlement of possession of the plot despite express promise made in clause 9 of deed of agreement to deliver possession by end of 2010 which act is also deficiency of service under Section 2 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act.

5. We therefore, allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the deposited sum of Rs. 9,85,854/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant in addition to the refund as directed. Let the order be complied by OP 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 08.02.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member