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.670/2013

MRS. SANJEETA DEVI

W/O SH. MANOJ YADAV

VILLAGE & POST – SIDHRAWALI,

DISTT.-GURGAON-122413, HARYANA

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

M-TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

(SUBSIDIARY OF ANS COSNTRUCTIONS LTD.),

ANS HOUSE, 144/2, ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110014

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:24.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

The case of the complainant is that she booked  a flat measuring 1200 sq. ft. @ Rs.1450/- per sq. ft. in the Camellia Garden project of OP and paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- vide cheque bearing No.398853 dated 19.09.2006.  The complainant had opted for construction linked plan.  At the time of booking, OP promised to hand over the flat in two years otherwise there was provision to pay a penalty of Rs.2/- per sq. ft. per annum till possession is delivered.  As demanded by OP, the complainant further made payment of Rs.2,08,000/- vide cheque bearing No. 694444 dated 19.01.2007.  In 2008 the complainant received a letter vide which OP demanded second installment.  The complainant found that in fact there was no chance of that project being completed.  The complainant was fed up with the attitude of OP and therefore sought refund of the amount of Rs.3,48,800/- vide surrender application dated 09.02.2011.  As desired by OP the complainant also deposited the original receipts.  OP only refunded a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- leaving a balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.  Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service the present complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of booking and also sought Rs.1 lakh towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

OP in reply took the plea that the complainant is not a consumer and also the present complaint is barred by limitation.  It is stated 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.

It is not disputed that the complainant applied for a flat in the aforesaid project of OP.  It is not disputed that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,48,800/-.  The complainant has specifically stated that there was no progress towards the completion of the project.  OP has failed to prove anything on record to show that they had gone ahead with the project or allotted any flat to any person in that project. 

It is not disputed that the complainant has sought refund of the amount vide application which was duly received by OP on 09.02.2011.  It is not disputed that a sum of Rs.1,68,800/- was refunded leaving a balance of Rs.1,80,000/-. 

The complainant is indeed a consumer as she has booked a flat and deposited the amount as desired by OP.  There is no question of the complaint being barred by limitation as neither the flat was allotted nor entire amount was refunded.

OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay Rs.15,000/- 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.

(H.C. SURI)                                                                 (A.S. YADAV)          

  MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT