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.365/2013
MRS. SHOBHANA SINGH
W/O SH. IKRAMJIT SINGH BAWA
456, SECTOR A, POCKET C, VASANT KUNJ,
NEW DELHI-110070
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs
- M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.
REGD. OFICE:-
144-4/A, 4/B, VILLAGE KILOKARI,
HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110014
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
- MR. AMIT KUMAR JHA, DIRECTOR
M/S M-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.
144-4/A, 4/B, VILLAGE KILOKARI,
HARI NAGAR ASHRAM, MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110014
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 21.1.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that she booked 2-BHK flat measuring 1250 sq. ft. @ Rs.1555/- per sq. ft. in the upcoming project of OP by the name of “M-Tech Glare Project” at Dharuhera, Haryana and paid booking amount of Rs.1,90,000/- vide receipt dated 10.02.2007. On 09.06.2007, OP issued a ‘Priority Number Slip’ to the complainant whereby allotting a priority number MG-2BR-G21 to the complainant. Vide letter dated 26.07.2007, OP informed progress detail of their various projects including M-Tech Glare Dharuhera wherein it was stated that expected date of launch of project is 25.08.2007.
It is further stated that on 04.10.2007, the complainant paid the first installment of Rs.1,94,563/- which included the interest for the late payment and obtained a receipt No.MG00734. On 01.01.2008 OP issued a letter stating that the projects are under progress and the papers are submitted in various departments for necessary approvals. Vide letter dated 01.02.2008, OP called for second installment (10% of the basic price) and informed the complainant that they can enter into a Buyer-Seller Agreement only after receipt of the payment of second installment. On 20.03.2008 the complainant paid the second installment amounting to Rs.1,94,375/- vide receipt No.16268. In all the complainant has paid to OP a total sum of Rs.5,78,938/- which is 30% of the basic price of the flat.
It is further stated that as per the conditions agreed to between the parties, the flat was to be allotted to the complainant on receipt of the first installment and a Buyer-Seller Agreement was to be executed between the parties after receipt of the second installment (i.e. after payment of 30% of the cost of the flat). However OP has neither allotted the flat nor executed the Buyers Sellers Agreement despite letters dated 29.07.2011, 05.08.2011, 10.08.2011 and 09.09.2011. The complainant having left with no other option, issued a legal notice dated 02.04.2013 asking OP to refund the amount of Rs.5,78,938/- with interest. Despite issue of notice, the amount 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 refund a sum of Rs.5,78,938/- alongwith interest and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further stated that it is the admission of the complainant that “she has purchased two flats and invested Rs.15 lakhs to purchase each flat” shows that the complainant is not a consumer and is merely an investor. The payment was not made as per the payment plan. The present complaint is barred by limitation. In fact the complaint has nowhere averred that she is ready to pay further installment. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In rejoinder the complainant denies the averments made in the reply.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
So far as pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, advance registration application itself shows that the total cost of the flat was Rs.19,43,750/- hence the same is very much within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum.
So far as the complaint being barred by limitation is concerned, it is significant to note that neither the flat had been allotted nor the amount was refunded. Notice was issued for refund of the amount on 02.04.2013 despite that the amount was not refunded and the present complaint was filed on 04.07.2013. The complaint is very much within limitation.
The complainant is indeed a consumer as she applied for allotment of flat and made almost 30% of the payment but neither the flat was allotted nor the amount was refunded.
It is significant to note that the booking was made in February 2007 and OP vide letter dated 01.01.2008 informed the complainant that papers have been submitted in various departments for necessary approval and as soon as they get the approval, they will inform the complainant. The complainant has specifically stated in the legal notice that there is no progress or development taken place in respect of the above project. It is further stated in the notice that OP did not obtain the relevant license or permission for the project before starting the booking of the flat. In fact OP has not placed anything on record to show that they had gone ahead with the construction of the flat or even after six years they have allotted any flat to any person. The complainant has specifically stated that despite giving 30% of the amount, neither the allotment letter was issued nor Buyers Sellers Agreement was executed. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund a sum Rs.5,78,938/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.04.2008. OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- 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
