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.72/2016

MS. RANJANA

W/O DR. SHACHINDRA SHARMA

R/O C-1876, SUSHANT LOK-I,

P.O.-D.L.F., GURGAON,

HARYANA-122002

.……. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.

ANS HOUSE 144/2, ASHRAM,

MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:16.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

The case of the complainant is that she booked a plot measuring 160 sq. yds. in the upcoming project of OP by the name of “Camellia Garden-II” at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on 09.01.2007 and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.  It is stated that after payment of aforesaid registration amount, OP company did not communicate about the progress of the project until 20.06.2008.  OP sent a letter dated 20.06.2008 to complainant stating therein that they have already submitted papers for approval in various Departments with Govt. of Rajasthan and due to political disturbances in Rajasthan, it is taking a lot of time for getting the required approval.  Since OP has misappropriated the funds of lot of persons, they gave a public notice informing that they have acquired land through their subsidiary company.  The fact of the matter is that no progress can be seen at the site.  Even after waiting for 7½ years nothing was done and as desired by OP, the complainant surrendered the provisional registration on 16.06.2014 and submitted the original receipt.  Despite that the amount was not refunded. 

Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the complaint has filed this complaint whereby she prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as well as and Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs.1 lakh for false promises made by OP company.

OP in its reply stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and the present complaint is barred by limitation.  It is further stated that company is bound to refund the money but in this case, the complainant has failed to submit the documents desired by OP.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have gone through the case file carefully.

The complainant is indeed a consumer as she had booked a plot in the project of OP and paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of booking in January 2007. 

It is proved from the letter dated 20.06.2008 of OP that they had not even taken the permission for the project.  The complainant has waited for more than seven yeas for the allotment of the plot but the same was not done ultimately the complainant vide letter dated 16.06.2014 sought refund of the amount and as desired by OP, the original receipt was submitted.  Despite that the amount was not refunded. 

It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

OP is directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- 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