Case No.CC/133/2015

Date of Institution:-01.04.2015

Order Reserved on :-23.07.2024

           Date of Order :-16.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar

S/o Sh. Harpal Singh

R/o 70/C, Jung Group Housing Society,

Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi – 110085.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s Alliance Nirman Limited

324-325, 3^rd Floor,

VerdhmanBalhnhof Plaza,

Pocket-12, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075.

2. Arvinder Singh (Director)

M/s Alliance Nirman Limited

3. Amit Sharma (Sales Manager)

M/s Alliance Nirman Limited

4. SanjeevArora (Accounts Oficer)

M/s Alliance Nirman Limited

Respondent No. 2 – 4 are at:

324-325, 3^rd Floor,

VerdhmanBalhnhof Plaza,

Pocket-12, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075.

… Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Parties (in short OP) alleging deficiency of service.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the agents working for OP-1 approached the complainant and stated that their company is launching a project under the name and style “Cedar High Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttrakhand.  The agents of OP has shown rosy picture of the project and they induced the complainant that such an event not be repeated gain on that price and space availability. In the month of August, 2006, the complainant was induced to visit office of the OP at NarianaManzil, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and met Mr. Arvinder Singh (OP-2) who stated himself as director of OP-1. The OP-2 has introduced the complainant with OP-3 and stated that he is the sales manager in the company and OP-4 as accounts officer in the company.  The OP stated that they are persons-in-charge for responsible for day to day business affairs of the OP-1 as they will bear all the responsibility in future also.  The complainant has booked two bedrooms flat in the said project of OP and the complainant was instructed to pay Rs.1,99,000/-. The OP has assured the complainant that the possession of flat will be allotted within 15 months from date of deposit of down payment.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) through cheque bearing no. 012961 drawn on ICICI bank for allotment of 1200  sq. ft. in the previous project “Cedar High Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttranchal.  The complainant has also paid Rs.25000/- through cheque bearing no. 509621 dated 27.09.2007 drawn on ICICI bank but when he received the receipt of the same there was surprising fact that it was written as “on account of booking Tower 796.50 Sq. Ft.  to be developed in the project “Ceder High  Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttranchal.   The complainant has informed the OP that the area of the flat was reduced from 1200 sq. ft. to 796.50 sq. ft.  The OPs have not fulfilled their commitments at the primary stage and assured the complainant the possession of flat will be handed over within 15 months from date of payment. The complainant has paid total Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) as 25% of total sale consideration for the flat.  The OP has issued allotment letter dated 07.07.2011 to the complainant in the fake name i.e. Sanjay Kumar in place of Sanjeev Kumar.  The OP have not allotted the flat after expiry of 15 months. On 09.06.2009, the complainant has written a letter to the OP for refund of entire amount but the OP has not refunded the deposited money to the complainant.  The complainant has prayed for refund Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand)alongwith Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- for litigation charges.
3. Notice was served to OP. OP have filed their reply but OP did not file their evidence despite several opportunities and imposing cost. Hence, the defence of OP was struck off vide order dated 27.02.2018.
4. The complainant has filed affidavit in evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
5. On 23.07.2024, the case was listed for arguments and it was stated by the complainant that the case may be decide on the basis of material on record.  Hence, the order was reserved.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly.
7. It is the case of the complainant that hehad booked two bedrooms flat in the project of OP namely “Cedar High Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttrakhand. The complainant was instructed to pay Rs.1,99,000/-. The OP has assured the complainant that the possession of flat will be allotted within 15 months from date of deposit of down payment.  The complainant has paid Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) through cheque bearing no. 012961 drawn on ICICI bank for allotment of 1200  sq. ft. in the previous project “Cedar High Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttranchal.  The complainant has also paid Rs.25000/- through cheque bearing no. 509621 dated 27.09.2007 drawn on ICICI bank but when he received the receipt of the same there was surprising fact that it was written as “on account of booking Tower 796.50 Sq. Ft.  to be developed in the project “Ceder High  Classic” at Rudrapur, Uttranchal.   The complainant has informed the OP that the area of the flat was reduced from 1200 sq. ft. to 796.50 sq. ft.  The OPs have not fulfilled their commitments at the primary stage and assured the complainant the possession of flat will be handed over within 15 months from date of payment.  The complainant has paid total Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) as 25% of total sale consideration for the flat.  The OP has issued allotment letter dated 07.07.2011 to the complainant in the fake name i.e. Sanjay Kumar in place of Sanjeev Kumar.  The OPs have not allotted the flat after expiry of 15 months. On 09.06.2009, the complainant has written a letter to the OP for refund of entire amount but the OP has not refunded the deposited money to the complainant.
8. It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the flat so sought the refund of the deposited amount, but the same has not been refunded by the OP despite repeated requests.  It is his case that this conduct of the OP amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Non-delivery of the possession of the flat on receipt of the booked amount within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.

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

9. The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is believed.
10. From the facts of the case and evidence placed on the record, it is clear that on receipt of the deposit amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) from the complainant, the OP has neither handed over the possession of the flat nor refunded the amount to the complainant and this act apparently and clearly constitutes deficiency in service, monopolistic and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
11. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)as lumpsumfor mental harassment and litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with 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.
• Announce in the open Court on 16.08.2024.