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.111/2013
MR. BALBIR KUMAR SHARMA
S/O SH. BHAGWANT RAI SHARMA
R/O 21, CHINAR APARTMENT, SECTOR-9,
ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.
- SH. MAHINDER SHARMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.
- SH. AMIT KUMAR JHA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.
ALL THE ABOVE HAVING OFFICE AT:-
M-TECH HOUSE, 144/2, HARI NAGAR,
ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110014
- M/S DALAL REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.
SHOP NO.56, HUDA MARKET COMPLEX,
SECTOR-15/11, GURGAON-122001
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:24.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that he booked a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in the upcoming project namely Camellia Garden-1 Bhiwadi of OP-1 and paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- vide cheque dated 05.05.2007. It was assured that allotment of the plot will be made within nine months from the booking.
It is further stated that the complainant also made a payment of Rs.1,90,000/- in cash as premium for the purpose of booking of said plot as it was made clear that the plot will not be booked without paying the premium. OP-1 also assured that all the necessary formalities like approval from the appropriate authority for developing the said project have already been initiated and the possession of the plot would be given by the end of year 2007. However, OP-1 did not keep its promise and failed to deliver the possession of the booked plot.
It is further stated that the complainant has been constantly contacting the OPs. The complainant received a letter dated 28.02.2009 from OP whereby they promised to make the allotment within nine months and also for execution of the Builder Buyer Agreement within nine months however that was not done. OP-1 vide letter dated 19.02.2010 regretted the delay due to technical reasons and assured that the allotment of the plot will be made by the end of July 2010 failing which the deposited amount will be refunded alongwith interest, however, nothing was done. Subsequently OP vide email informed the complainant that due to some complications, the Camellia Garden-I Project could not be processed further and thus OP advised the complainant to switch over from the aforesaid project to Camellia Garden-II Project for allotment of a flat instead of a plot. It was also mentioned that the entire advance money is being transferred in new project without any formalities. However, that was not acceptable to the complaint. In fact the complainant was constrained to send a legal notice dated 13.10.2012 asking for the refund of the aforesaid amount but the same was not refunded. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to allot the plot and also pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. During the course of proceedings, the complainant sought refund of the amount.
OP in reply took the plea that OP that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It is further stated that the complainant was unable to pay the remaining installment and he has concocted a story for refund of the amount. It is stated that as per rule, 20% of the booking amount would be deducted if any party fails to pay further installment. It is submitted that due to litigation between National Highway Authority of India and OP regarding development of said project the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, therefore, the said project could not be completed. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
There is no question of the complaint being barred by limitation as neither the plot was allotted nor the amount was refunded. It is proved on record that the complainant booked a plot in May 2007 and paid a sum of Rs.4,25,000/-. It is proved from the letter dated 28.02.2009 whereby OP assured to allot the pot within nine months as well as execution of Builder Buyer Agreement, but nothing was done.
The complainant has categorically stated that the project was not started. In fact OP admitted that the project was not completed. OP has taken a false plea that the complainant has not made further payment. In fact OP has not placed on record any letter demanding further payment. There is no question of demanding further payment as OP itself admitted that because of litigation, the project could not be started. Under these circumstances OP should have refunded the amount but it was not done. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
The complainant has failed to prove that apart from Rs.4,25,000/-, he has paid Rs.1,90,000/- as premium. So OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from June 2007. OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
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.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
