Case No.CC/419/2016

    Date of Institution:-08.09.2016

        Order Reserved on :- 19.11.2024

           Date of Order :-27.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. ShaliniPrakash

R/o C2D, 27-A,

DDA MIG Plots,

Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058.

            …..Complainant

VERSUS

Metro Max Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director,

Mr. GaganNayyar,

Having its Corporate Office at :

D-12, First Floor, Opp. B-9 Block

Near Vasant Star Mall,

VasantKunj,New Delhi – 110070.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatt he complainant has booked a plot measuring 126.39 sq. yd. in the project of OP namely ‘Lotus Valley Scheme’ in the year 2011. The OP has assured the complainant that plot will be registered within 3 years.  The OP has fixed the total cost of plot was Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. The complainant has paid installments from the year 2011 to 2014 and receipt is being attached as Annexure.  The OP has given a membership no. LV367 in the Lotus Valley on Delhi-Jaipur Highway.  In 2104, the OP has stopped taking the payment from complainant. OP has informed the complainant that rest of the amount will be taken at the time of registration.   The complainant has paid Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand)  to the OP. The complainant has requested the OP to draw the agreement but the OP has not complied with. The complainant has asked for registration of the plot but the OP has informed the complainant that registry in Jaipur was closed and hence registry could not be done.  The complainant has sent a letter dated 25.06.2016 and a legal notice dated 18.07.2016 but the OP has not replied to the complainant.    The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,82,750/- (interest @ 11% p.a. on Rs.1,75,000/- for 3 years – 2014 to 2016 + Rs.50,000/- for mental tension).
2. OP has filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has booked a plot in the project of OP namely ‘Lotus Valley Scheme’ and deposited Rs.11,000/- as booking amount. The rest of the payment payable in 21 EMI of Rs.11,327/-.  The complainant did not adhere to terms and condition for registration and allotment and since first installment started violating the terms by making lesser payment to the OP.  The complainant has failed to make entire payment of plot which essence of the agreement which was duly signed by the complainant.  The OP has stated that the complainant had deposited total Rs.1,71,260/- and amount of Rs.1,12,776/- was due upon the complainant. As per the agreement, if the customer failed to make timely payment of the installment on due date he/she shall be liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a.    The complainant has not made the entire payment of the plot booked by her.  Hence, complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is deserved to be dismissed. The OP has stated that the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.  It is submitted that the complainant along with OP had agreed amongst themselves that the courtsat Jaipur, Rajasthan alone shall have jurisdiction in matters arising out of any issue in this agreement. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.
3. The complainant has filed rejoinder reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and denying the allegations leveled in the written statement.
4. Both the parties have led evidence as well as filed written arguments in support of their case.
5. On 19.11.2024, the case was listed for arguments,we have heard the Ld. Counsels Sh. Prabhoo DayalTiwari, who had appeared for the complainant. None appeared for OP and a liberty was given to the OP to address arguments within 7 working days.Hence, the case was reserved for order.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly perused the documents placed on record.
7. It is the case of the complainant that shehad booked a plot measuring 126.39 sq. yd. in the project of OP namely ‘Lotus Valley Scheme’ in the year 2011. The OP has assured the complainant that plot will be registered within 3 years.  The OP has fixed the total cost of plot was Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. The complainant has paid installments from the year 2011 to 2014 and receipt is being attached as Annexure.  The OP has given a membership no. LV367 in the Lotus Valley on Delhi-Jaipur Highway.  In 2104, the OP has stopped taking the payment from complainant. OP has informed the complainant that rest of the amount will be taken at the time of registration.   The complainant has paid Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand)  to the OP. The complainant has requested the OP to draw the agreement but the OP has not complied with. The complainant has asked for registration of the plot but the OP has informed the complainant that registry in Jaipur was closed and hence registry could not be done.  The complainant has sent a letter dated 25.06.2016 and a legal notice dated 18.07.2016 but the OP has not replied to the complainant.
8. It is the case of the complainant that when she did not get the possession of plot, she asked for refund of her deposited money but the same has not been refunded despite repeated requests and correspondences with the OP.  It is the case of this conduct amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP has not denied the booking of the plot in their written statement. As far as the plea of Arbitrator clause between the parties is concerned, the same is not relevant as Section 3 and Section 100 CPC do not bar in filing of such complaint, despite having their Arbitration clause between the parties. The OP was under obligation to refund her booking amount as claimed by complainant. Non-delivery of possession of plot on receipt of money within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

“ArifurRehman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Home Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 16 SCC 512” is the authority on this point.

9. In the end, it is clear from the records that the complainant has paid money for the residential plot with the OP, made the payment as demanded by the OP and despite receipt of the amount, the possession of the plot was not handed over to the complainant.   
10. We are satisfied that this act on part of the OP constitutes deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.
11. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.1,71,260/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Two Hundred Sixty) to the complainant alongwth an interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited money andRs.40,000/- as lump sum for mental agony and litigation charges within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which OP shall be liable to pay entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announced in the open Court on 27.11.2024.