CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.743/2009

SH. JYOTI SWAROOP ARORA

S/O SH. H.D. ARORA

460/1, WARD NO.12,

JACOBPURA,

GURGAON-122001(HARYANA)

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

SHRI MEHINDER SHARMA

REGD. OFFICE: “M-TECH HOUSE”,

144-4/A, 4/B, HARI NAGAR, ASHRAM,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

AND

Case No.744/2009

SMT. SANGEETA ARORA

W/O SH. J.S. ARORA

460/1, WARD NO.12,

JACOBPURA,

GURGAON-122001(HARYANA)

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                            

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

SHRI MEHINDER SHARMA

REGD. OFFICE: “M-TECH HOUSE”,

144-4/A, 4/B, HARI NAGAR, ASHRAM,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                                …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                    Date of Order:04.11.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved.  For the sake of reference, facts of case no.743/09 are detailed. 

In brief the case of the complainant is that OP launched a township in Bhiwadi in 2006 in the name and style of “M-Tech Heights”.  OP advertised is project widly in the print media as well as electronic media.  Based on the promises made by OP, complainant booked one 2 BHK 1,200 sq. ft. fully furnished flat @ Rs.1,450/- per sq. ft. by filling up and signing a registration form and apid a booking amount of Rs.1,10,000/-. 

The complainant booked the flat on the mutual agreed terms and conditions contained in the registration form.  As per registration form OP shall handover the possession in 24 months from the date of launching and the prices are subject to revision from time to time at the sole discretion of OP.  At the time of issuing of receipt for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- it was promised by OP that a Buyer Seller Agreement shall be executed on the receipt of all Government approvals/clearances for the project.  OP sent a letter dated 25.3.2008 to complainant intimating about the status of the project and raised a demand of Rs.2,38,000/-.  The said letter was replied by the complainant on 26.5.2008 wherein the complainant stated that the apartment was booked on the basis of terms and conditions of registration contained in the registration form which do not have any mention of agreed payment schedule and in the absence of agreed payment schedule the demand of payment by OP has not legal sanctity.  The complainant has further asked OP to arrange to execute a Buyer Seller Agreement containing construction link payment schedule and various milestone to be achieved vis-à-vis payment of instalment.  OP failed to reply the said letter dated 26.5.2008 and reminder dated 0.8.2008 and 17.11.2008.  Accordingly this complaint has been filed. 

Later on this complaint was amended and the complainant prayed for refund of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith 18% interest as well as Rs.15,000/- for compensation and Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

OP in its reply took the preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation as the payment was made in the year 2006 and the present complaint is being filed in the year 2009.  It is not disputed that complainant has booked a flat in the project of OP and paid Rs.1,10,000/-.  It was assured that OP shall hand over possession within two years from the receipt of permission from the government.  It is stated as the complainant failed to pay remaining amount of Rs.64,000/- therefore no Buyer Seller Agreeent was executed with the complainant.  The present complaint has been filed just to harass the OP.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complaint was amended and the complainant sought refund of Rs.1,10,000/-.  No reply was file by OP to the amended complaint.  OP was proceeded ex parte. 

We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the records. 

Complainant has specifically stated the he booked the flat on mutually agreed terms and conditions contained in the registration form and as per that the OP was to hand over the possession in 24 months from the date of launching.  A sum of RS.1,10,00/- was paid by the complainant on 01.11.2006 by way of cheque.  Complainant moved an application for bringing the subsequent events on record.  During the pendency of the present complaint, complainant visited the site in question on 23.10.11 and he was shocked to see that the site has been deserted by the OP and the site was found to be a thoroughfare.  Even the cattles were grazing there.  Complainant has placed photographs on the record showing that no construction has been carried out at the site.

In fact ideally the possession should have been delivered by 2008 but till 2011 there was no progress regaring the project.  The complainant has written letter to OP on 26.5.2008 wherein he has called upon the OP to execute a Buyer Seller Agreement.  He has further requested to OP to intimate whether all the approvals for the project have been received and also requested to provide a certified copy of the same. 

That letter was not responded by OP even a reminder was sent on 01.8.08 and 17.11.8 but of no avail.

It is proved on the record that no agreement was executed between the parties showing as to how much payment is to be made by the complainant and at what stages.  OP has not intimated to the complainant about the approval granted by the appropriate Government.  OP has not informed the complainant about the progress of the project despite complainant’s writing letters and reminders to OP.  Obviously under these circumstances, complainant was under no obligation to make further payment.  Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Complainant has rightfully demanded for the refund of his amount. 

The course of action firstly arose on 26.5.2008 when complainant wrote a letter to the OP and it further arose when reminders were sent to the OP on 01.8.2008 and 13.11.2008.  The present complaint was filed on 13.10.2009.  The same is not barred by limitation.

The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from November 2006 as well as entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.,5,000/- towards litigation cost.

In case No.744/098 is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from February 2007 as well as entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.,5,000/- towards litigation cost.

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

        (D.R. TAMTA)                                                                        (A.S. YADAV)

            MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT