Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 566.
Instituted on : 14.11.2018.
Decided on : 15.10.2019.
Dayawanti aged 52 years, w/o Dr. Ram Kumar R/o H.No.148 Sector-2,3(Part) Market Near Jat Bhawan Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd. D-43, Sector-6 Noida-201301(U.P.) through its Managing Director/Chairman/Authorized Signatory/Directors.
- M/s M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd. Branch Office at Kheri Sadh on Rohtak-Delhi Main Road Tehsil Sampla District Rohtak through its Principal Officer.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.S.Gehlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.C.Sikri, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had applied for a residential flat with the respondents and had paid an amount of Rs.500000/- through cheque no.567155 dated 15.03.2013 drawn on OBC Bank and OPs duly issued a receipt No.MBI/12-13/378 dated 18.03.2013 to the complainant duly signed by their authorized signatory Ms. Archna in favour of complainant. That the respondents were not having any of the requisite approvals for constructing and developing the said project. The respondents had falsely represented that they have all the approvals and the same constitutes as an unfair trade practice under section 7(1)(c) of the Real Estate(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. That respondents got letter of intent for setting up of residential group housing colony and they get license no.32 of 2014 on dated 12.06.2014 and in clause No.U of the license, it is also specified that no flat will be sold before approvals of building plans. That respondents promised the complainant to refund advance registration amount of Rs.9.5 lacs alongwith interest of 18% p.a. in case respondents fail to allot a residential flat within three years of advance registration and to raise construction for the above said project. That the respondents have neither started the construction work nor allotted any flat to complainant till date. That respondents did not release the above said amount despite the repeated representations and reminders of the complainant. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the respondents to make the payment of Rs.500000/- alongwith interest besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation to the complainant, as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.500000/- at the time of registration through cheque No.567155 dated 15.03.2013 and has filed the complaint on 14.11.2018 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of 2 years. That the complainant is not a consumer as the flat was not required by the complainant for his personal use, the present complaint is time barred by limitation. That the total value of the flat in dispute is more than 20 lakhs i.e. value of the jurisdiction of this Court. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the registered office/head office of the OPs is at Gurgaon. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complaint in his evidence Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 18.06.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that the reply already filed in this case, be read as affidavit in evidence and has closed his evidence on dated 09.08.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
6. The objection as to commercial purpose was taken during the pendency of the complaint but OPs failed to place any cogent evidence or material which could prove that the flat was purchased for commercial purpose. Regarding the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction, the total relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs. So this objection is turned down. Regarding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the office of opposite parties is situated at Rohtak and the flat in dispute is also situated at Rohtak, so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the offer of the opposite parties complainant paid Rs.500000/- which was accepted by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is a consumer.
7. After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that the respondents have received an amount of Rs.500000/- and issued receipt Ex.C1 dated 18.03.2013. A letter Ex.C4 vide memo No.LC2848-PA(B)-2013/57687 issued by the department on dated 18.11.2013 and on that day the letter of intent for grant of license for setting up of residential group housing colony over an area measuring 7.418 acres falling in revenue estate of village Kheri Sadh, Sector 27A, Rohtak has been granted to the complainant and the copy of license Ex.C3 is dated 12.06.2014. It means that on dated 18.03.2013 the respondents have no licence to built up a residential premises whereas the amount was received by the opposite parties prior to getting the license Ex.C3 dated 12.06.2014. This fact itself shows a great deficiency in service on the part of respondents. So the act of opposite parties itself is not only a grave deficiency in service, such deficiencies or omission tantamounts to unfair trade practice.
8. We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in III(2018)CPJ 374(NC) titled as Emaar MGF Land Vs. Gagan Gupta and TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Aditya Tomar. In view of the aforesaid law, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
9. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.500000/-(Rupees five lacs only) which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.10.2019.
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
