CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 502/2010
- SHRI SATISH KUMAR VERMA
S/O SHRI N.L. VERMA
- SMT. GEETA VERMA
W/O SHRI SATISH KUMAR VERMA
BOTH RESIDENTS OF 21/53,
OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DLEHI
………. COMPLAINANTS
Vs.
- M/S INGENIOUS MENTORS PVT. LTD.
226, BASEMENT, CABIN C,
SANT NAGAR, EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI-110065
- M/S D.D TOWNSHIP LIMITED
F-1/9 OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-1 NEW DELHI-110020
- M/S INCLINAION ANSWERS PVT. LTD.
226, BASEMENT, CABIN C, SANT NAGAR,
EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065
………….RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 12/12/2018
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complaint pertains to defect in service by OP in not providing provisional registration for upcoming future projects. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- vide cheque dated 8/7/2006. A receipt dated 14/7/2006 was issued by OP.
As OP1 did not come up with any project the complainant requested for refund. He received two cheques for Rs.3,67,000/- each from OP1 and two cheques for Rs.1,32,000/- each from OP2, towards refund of amount deposited. The complainants were informed that the cheques would be cleared in January 2009. However, the said cheques were dishonoured.
It is stated that as OP1 & 2 were unable to pay the refund amount, they requested the complainant to invest the amount in upcoming future projects of OP3. The complainant agreed to reinvest the amount with OP3 and received a receipt dated 30/3/2009 from OP3. It is alleged that OP1, 2 and 3 are being run by the same person with different names in order to mislead the general public. As OP3 did not come up with any project, the complainant once again asked for a refund. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.7,35,000/- with interest and compensation. The complainant has filed receipt by OP1 dated 14/7/2006, copy of cheques of OP1 & 2 letter dated 27/12/2008 by OP1, receipt dated 30/3/2009 by OP3 and legal notice.
OP1 &2 in its reply has stated that the complainants have never raised a demand notice. It is admitted that the complainant approached OP1 for provisional registration for booking of plot/flat in the upcoming future projects. It is clarified that the complainant transferred his booking amount from OP1 to OP3 in year 2009.
OP3 in its reply has stated that the complainant is not a consumer as it has not availed any services or purchase any goods from OP3. It is stated that the complainants approached OP3 for transfer of booking of provisional registration of plot/flat in the upcoming future projects of OP3. The amount was transferred in year 2009. It is stated that the receipt clearly mentioned that the payment for booking does not entitle the complainant to claim allotment.
We have perused the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties. It is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.7,35,000/- with OP1 vide receipt dated 14/7/2006. The copies of cheques dated 12/12/2008 15/12/2008 10/12/2008 18/12/2008 shows that these cheques were issued by OP1 & 2 in favour of the complainant. The letter dated 20/7/2008 by OP1 requested the complainant to deposit the cheques for clearance in month of January 2009. OP1 and OP2 have jointly paid by way cheque Rs.7,34,000/- and Rs.2,64,000/- It is stated by the complainant the cheques were dishonoured. OP has not denied the same and accepted the same as being matter of record. It is further admitted by all the parties that the amount of Rs.7,35,000/- was reinvested with OP3. A receipt was issued by OP3 on 30/3/2009 in favour of the complainant. The complainant is indeed a consumer.
The description of the receipt shows “provisional registration amount of our upcoming future project”. It is also admitted by all the parties that no registration has been made till date. In fact OP3 has emphasised that the receipt does not entitle the complainant to claim allotment.
It is clear that OP3 has received Rs.7,35,000/- and no registration or handing over a plot has been made to the complainant in lieu of the said payment. Hence, we find OPs guilty of deficiency in service.
We direct OP1 & 2 to pay Rs.2,63,000/- to complainant from date of cheque till payment and OP3 to refund Rs.7,35,000/- with interest from date of receipt till payment. We also award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment inclusive of litigation expense.
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.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C SURI) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
