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. 202/2017
- SHRI BRIJESH GUPTA
S/O SH. MADAN LAL,
R/O A-382, RAJIV COLONY,
MOHAN NAGAR, OPP-NEW ALPS GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH – 201007
…………. COMPLAINANT NO. 1
- SHRI RAJ KUMAR GUPTA
S/O SHRI BRIJESH GUPTA,
R/O A-882, RAJIV COLONY,
MOHAN NAGAR, OPP-NEW ALPS GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH – 201007
…………. COMPLAINANT NO. 2
Vs.
MAHALUXMI REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. OFFICE AT:
42, GROUND FLOOR, JUNGPURA,
BHOGAL, NEW DELHI-110014
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS,
SH. SUNIL KUMAR MIGLANI & ANITA MIGLANI
ALSO OFFICE AT:
C1 / C2, LGF, MAHALUXMI METRO TOWER,
SECTOR-4, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, 201010
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS,
SH. SUNIL KUMAR MIGLANI & ANITA MIGLANI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:25.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The case of the complainant is that on 07.02.2017, complainant booked one two BHK unit bearing No SUN-6 1208, on 12th floor in the project MIGSUN ROOF at Raj Nagar Extension, being developed by Opposite Party measuring super area of 815 sq.ft @ Rs. 2100 basic sales price amounting to cost was Rs. 17,11,500/-.
The said amount was paid by virtue of three cheques for which receipt dated 10.02.2017, 14.02.2017 and 08.03.2017 were issued. After perusal of the above said receipts, the complainant was shocked to see the booked flat’s address was SUN 6 1208 but flat’s address was mentioned on said receipt was SUN 6 1408 instead of SUN 6 1208. Thereafter, the complainant No. 2 immediately sent email dated 09.03.2017 to enquire about the change of address of above said booked flat but opposite party did not respond the above said email. Moreover, the OP instead of responding to above said email dated 09.03.2017 sent another receipt No. 0421 amounting to Rs. 51,000/- dated 27.01.2017 in the name of other person namely Sh. Vipin Kumar for flat bearing No SUN 6 1408. Thereafter, the complainants were extremely confused about the said booking of flats on 07.02.2017. The OP unilaterally changed their booked flat bearing No. SUN 6 1208 to SUN 6 1408 and the said changed flat SUN 6 1408 was also booked in the other person’s name, namely, Mr. Vipin Kumar. The Complainant’s choice flat (east facing flat) SUN 6 1208 was changed without their consent and changed flat i.e., SUN 6 1408 was also booked in another person’s name. Thereafter, the complainant’s trust & faith in OP’s goodwill lost due to said event. Thereafter, the complainant spent several sleepless nights due to above said deficient services provided by the OP because complainants invested their hard earned money to purchase the said flat. Thereafter, complainants made several phone calls to executives of the OP about said clarification of the status of their booked flat. The staffs & executives of the OP showed their inability to provide them booked flat as such flat was sold out and convinced the complainant No. 2 that they would provide them Sun 5 1206 (east facing & corner flat) instead of their booked flat due to their blunder and without raising of any extra cost.
That the OP after above said telephonic conversation with the Complainant No. 2, sent email dated 11.03.2017 to him titled as “WELCOME Letter” by which it booked flat bearing No. SUN 5 1206 in their name but it raised the extra cost of Rs. 40,750/-. Thereafter, the complainant No. 2 sent another email dated 14.03.2017 & 18.03.2017 to the OP by which he opposed the extra cost raised by it against the above said conversation on telephone.
The OP did not respond to the aforesaid emails. Thereafter, Complainant No. 2 sent another email dated 21.03.2017 and 22.03.2017 but both emails were not responded. Finally, complainant was constraint to sent the legal notice 11.05.2017 seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 1,79,300/-. However, the same was not complied with. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed. Where complainant has sought refund of amount of Rs. 1,79,300/- with 18 % interest from 13.02.2017 and then complainant further sought Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs. 20,000- towards legal expenses and Rs. 5,000 towards loss / damages suffered on account of expenses.
None appeared for OP despite service, accordingly, OP were proceeded ex-parte. It is proved from unprovided testimony of the Complainant that OP without the knowledge of the Complainant changed the booked flat and when Complainant protested about the same after a lot of time, OP agreed to allot another flat which was also east facing without extra demand cost. However, OP vide email dated 11.03.2017 demanded extra cost of Rs. 40,750/- which was protested by the Complainant and Complainant sent a number of emails which were not responded by the OP. It is a clear cut case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP, OP-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,79,300/- with 9 % interest from 01.04.2017, OP-1 is further direct 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
