Case No.CC/359/2017

Date of Institution:- 27.07.2017

Order Reserved on :- 19.07.2024

           Date of Order :-13.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Mohan Singh Mehra

S/o Sh. Puran Singh,

R/o P-4/943, Sultanpuri,

New Delhi – 110068.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

M/s. Arun Dev Builders

F-89/11, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi – 110020.

Also at :

F-1211, C.R. Park,

New Delhi – 110019.

… Opposite Party

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 in 2008, the complainant has booked a flat measuring 350 sq. ft. in the Project of OP namely “Dev City Bhiwadi”, District Alwar, Rajasthan and paid initial token amount Rs.30,000/- through cheque bearing no. 838744 dated 16.04.2008 drawn on State Bank of India. Copies of application form and cheque are annexed as Annexure C/2.  The complainant was invited by the OP on occasion of Bhumi Pujan on 07.04.2008.  The complainant has paid total Rs.2,06,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Six Thousand) to the OP.  The OP has assured the complainant that the possession of flat will be handed over to the complainant shortly.  The complainant visited the project site.  The complainant has visited the office of OP for refund of his deposited money but instead of refund the OP has requested to change flat in a similar locality.  The OP has failed to handover the possession of flat within reasonable time.  The OP has neither handed over the possession of flat nor refunded of his deposited money.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.2,06,000/- for wrongfully extracted by the OP from complainant and Rs.2,00,000/- towards price increase of similar flat, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation.  The OP has adopted unfair trade practice and rendered deficient in service to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
3. Notice was served to OP but OP did not attend the proceedings before this Commission and OP was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 05.01.2018. 
4. The complainant has filed Ex-parte evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
5. On 19.07.2024, the case was listed for arguments and we have heard arguments from Sh. Suresh Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.   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 he had booked a flat measuring 350 sq. ft. in the Project of OP namely “Dev City Bhiwadi”, District Alwar, Rajasthan and paid initial token amount Rs.30,000/- through cheque bearing no. 838744 dated 16.04.2008 drawn on State Bank of India. Copies of application form and cheque are annexed as Annexure C/2.  The complainant was invited by the OP on occasion of Bhumi Pujan on 07.04.2008.  The complainant has paid total Rs.2,06,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Six Thousand) to the OP.  The OP has assured the complainant that the possession of flat will be handed over to the complainant shortly.  The complainant visited the project site.  The complainant has visited the office of OP for refund of his deposited money but instead of refund the OP has requested to change flat in a similar locality.  The OP has failed to handover the possession of flat within reasonable time.  The OP has neither handed over the possession of flat nor refunded of his deposited money. 
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.

“Arifur Rehman 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.2,06,000/- 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.2,06,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Six Thousand)alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)as lumpsum for 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 13.08.2024.