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.254/2010
DR. HARJEET SINGH HOODA
S/O LATE SH. LAL CHAND
R/O 19/6J, MEDICAL ENCLAVE,
ROHTAK, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
AND
Case No.255/2010
COL. S.K. RATHEE
S/O LATE SH. RANDHIR SINGH
R/O H.NO.91, SECTOR-31,
GURGAON, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
AND
Case No.256/2010
BRIG. S.S. MALIK
S/O LATE SH. L.R. MALIK
R/O H.NO.841, SECTOR-17-A,
GURGAON, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S M. TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
M. TECH HOUSE, 144-4/A, 4B, HARI NAGAR,
ASHRAM, NEW DELHI
- SH. AMIT JHA
DIRECTOR, M. TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
M. TECH HOUSE, 144-4/A, 4B, HARI NAGAR,
ASHRAM, NEW DELHI-110014
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:27.09.2016
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.254/2010 are detailed.
In brief the case of the complainant is that he booked a flat measuring 1200 sq ft. in “Camellia Garden” project of OP at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and paid a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-vide cheque on 06.11.2006 for which the receipt was duly issued. OP assured the complainant that the possession would be delivered within two years and in case the possession is not delivered within two years then OP will pay a penalty to complainant @ Rs.2 per sq ft. per month till the delivery of the flat. Thereafter on the asking of the OPs, complainant further paid a sum of Rs.1,98,000/- for which the receipt dated 14.03.2007 was duly issued. Complainant after making the aforesaid payment visited the site number of times and found that in fact there was hardy any progress towards completion of project and no satisfactory answer was ever given by the officials of OP. Ultimately complainant decided to withdraw from the scheme and requested for refund of the amount vide application dated 22.08.2008. OP assured that the amount shall be refunded by way demand draft on 04.12.08 however the amount has not been refunded. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,28,000/- with agreed penalty of Rs.2/- per sq. ft. per month alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. as well as damages to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs.
OP in reply took the plea that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP rather it is the complainant who has not paid the instalment, as such the possession was not handed over. The complaint is barred by time. It is denied that it was assured that possession shall be delivered within two years. It is further stated that in fact OPs are liable to deduct 20% of the amount as per the rules as the amount has been paid to the brokers at the time of booking of the flat. It is submitted there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
It is not in dispute that complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,28,000/-. Complainant has placed on record the application whereby the flats/villas were offered to the public at large in which it is clearly stated that the possession will be handed over within 24 months from the date of launch and in case company is not ale to deliver the flat in time, then it will pay penalty @ Rs.2/- per sq. ft. per month. Admittedly in this case, the payment was made initially in November 2006. Complainant has categorically stated that in fact there was no progress regarding completion of project and the OP was looking far behind the schedule of the completion of the project, accordingly the refund was sought vide letter dated 22.08.2008. That letter was duly received by OP and OP promised to refund the amount by way of demand draft on 04.12.2008 but the same has not been done. It is stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
There is no question of the claim being barred by limitation. In this case, OP promised to refund the amount on 04.12.2008 but the amount has not been refunded accordingly complaint was filed on 03.05.2010 and the same is very much within limitation.
Ld. Counsel for OP has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs Dev Dutt Gandhi – IV(2004) CPJ 2(SC) - In that case possession was not given hence refund of money sought with interest. It was held that not delivering possession for so many years amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover there is no possibility of delivery of the possession in near future.
Likewise in this case also there is no possibility of possession and for that reason in fact OP agreed to refund the amount.
OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit. OP is further 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.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
