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.350/2011

SH. ANURAG AGARWAL

S/O SH. K.C. AGARWAL

R/O SUB-123, SUMMIT, DLF PHASE-V,

SECTOR-54, GURGAON

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.

ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110014

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

                                                …………..RESPONDENTS

                                                                                    Date of Order: 30.09.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

Complainant booked a flat in “Camellia Garden” project of OP at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and initially paid a sum of Rs.,130,000/- vide receipt dated 07.6.06 and thereafter paid Rs.198,000/- vide receipt dated 18.01.07.  In all complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,28,000/- to OP. 

The case of complainant is that after sometime he inquired about the status of the project and expected date of allotment as well as delivery of possession of the flat but there was no positive and satisfactory response from OP hence complainant was constrained to apply for cancellation of booking and refund of the amount deposited by him vide letter dated 26.06.08 and submitted the application alongwith original documents.  OP vide letter dated 05.11.08 assured to refund sum of Rs.3,20,000/- vide demand draft on 23.03.09.  The aforesaid amount was not refunded and OP only paid a sum of Rs.2,08,000/-.  It is, therefore, prayed that OP be directed to pay balance amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with 12% interest w.e.f. 26.8.08.  A sum of Rs.92,825/- claimed as interest in respect of delayed amount of Rs.2,08,000/.  Complainant also sought Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expense.

The reply field by OP is vague.  The only plea taken by the OP is that there was fault on the part of complainant as he failed to pay remaining instalment.

We have carefully perused the record.

The letter dated 05.11.08 clinches the entire issue whereby OP has agreed to refund a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- by way of demand draft on 23.03.09.  It is significant to note that complainant has sought refund vide letter dated 26.06.08 wherein it has specifically stated that since more than two years have passed and there is no clarity about the completion of project hence he wish to surrender the aforesaid booking.  This fact is not disputed by the OP rather OP vide letter dated 05.11.08 agreed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant.  The amount was not refunded.  Before filing of the complaint, a sum of Rs.208,000/- was refunded and during the pendency of complaint, Rs.40,000/- was paid.  Hence in all complainant received a sum of Rs.2,48,000/-.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with 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)                     (RITU GARODIA)                        (A.S. YADAV)

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT