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.532/2009
SH. SUNIL MAHAJAN
R/O B-15, LAXMI KUNJ,
SECTOR-13, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S M. TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,
M. TECH HOUSE,
144-4/A, 4/B, HARI NAGAR ASHRAM,
NEW DELHI-110014
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 15.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that OP had represented to the complainant that they are promoting housing scheme at Bhiwadi on the land owned by them and the said land is freehold. OP further represented that they had obtained all necessary sanctions from the competent authorities for developing the project on the said land. Complainant believing the representation of OP paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as registration amount. OP after the receipt of the amount failed to allot and deliver possession of plot to the complainant.
Complainant has further stated that in fact it has transpired that no sanction was granted to OP Company for the development of the project. The complainant as such applied to OP for the refund of the entire amount and surrendered the original documents issued by OP. Despite surrendering the original documents and sending legal notice dated 09.5.09, OP failed to refund the original amount. There was deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complaint has prayed that OP be directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% and also to pay Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony.
OP in the written statement has not disputed that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- to OP as registration amount for the allotment of plot. It is also stated in the written statement that OP has never told the complainant that they have secured permission from the appropriate government. It is stated that OP has applied for appropriate permission. It is stated that in fact the complainant has booked the plot in question with a view to get a good return by investing only a nominal amount but now due to the recession in the market, complainant is unable to sell his share in the open market and therefore filed this false complaint. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
We have heard Ld. Counsel of parties and carefully perused the record.
It is admitted fact that complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- towards the registration of plot in the project of OP. OP has failed to prove that after the receipt of this amount, any plot was allotted to the complainant. OP has failed to place any document on record to show that in fact they have started the project and asked for any instalment from the complainant. It is significant to note that the amount was paid on 12.7.06 whereas the complainant surrendered provisional registration in the aforesaid project on 01.12.08 i.e. after 1 ½ years. It is an admitted fact that at the time when the project was started by the OP, OP did not have the requisite sanction from the appropriate government. No project can be floated unless the requisite sanction has been obtained from the appropriate government. Nothing has been done by the OP after obtaining the registration amount from the complainant for almost 1 ½ years. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f July 2006 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.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
