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.391/2009

MR. RAMESH KUMAR

S/O SH. SALEK CHAND

R/O RZ-16A/15L, GALI NO.2,

MAIN SAGARPUR,

NEW DELHI-110046

                                                            …………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                           

                                                Vs.

M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,

144/2 ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110014

THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS

                                    …………..RESPONDENT

                        Date of Order:14.07.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that he has booked a plot measuring 200 sq. yds in the project of OP at N.C.R. Neemrana, Rajasthan and made a payment of Rs.1,75,000/- on 18.01.07.

It is further stated that complainant was always willing to make the payment of the balance consideration amount and requested OP to further perform its part of contract but OP avoided the same.  Complainant requested OP from time to time to know the development of the project however OP intentionally avoided to provide the details of the same on one pretext or the other.

It is further stated that seeing the conduct of the OP, complainant surrendered his booking and sought refund of his amount vide application dated 30.09.2008.  OP assured to refund the amount but till date amount has not been refunded.  The original documents were taken back by the OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith an interest @ 18% p.a. plus Rs.30,000/- as compensation, Rs.2200/- as cost of legal notice, Rs.20,000/- on account of expenses incurred by the complainant.

OP in the reply took the plea that if a person seeks refund then OP is entitled to deduct 20% of the total payment and the complainant refused to pay 20% of the amount. 

It is further stated that in fact complainant is not able to pay instalment and sought the refund of the amount for that reason.  It is stated that allegations made by the complainant are false.

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

In fact OP has failed to prove that they had taken any steps towards the progress of the project.  Complainant has specifically stated that the area is still not in inhabitable condition and it is not possible for complainant to make construction on the site and no security arrangements were made.  OP has not placed anything on record to show that the project was ready.  The surrender application and original documents were received by OP.  OP has failed to prove anything on the record that there was any agreement between the parties for deduction of 20% of the total amount of the plot.  It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

OP is directed to refund Rs.1,75,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.01.2009 and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- 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.

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

        MEMBER                               MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT