RAJENDER SINGH filed a consumer case on 26 Oct 2023 against M/S EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD in the South West Consumer Court. The case no is CC/17/255 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Nov 2023.
Delhi
South West
CC/17/255
RAJENDER SINGH - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/S EARTH INFRASTRUCTURES LTD - Opp.Party(s)
26 Oct 2023
ORDER
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/255/17
Date of Institution:-18.05.2017
Order Reserved on:-26.09.2023
Date of Decision:- 26.10.2023
In the matter of
Sh. Rajender Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kewal Singh
R/o B-503, Shubham Apartment,
Plot No. 13, Sector-22,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110077 …….Complainant
V/s
The Chief Mananging Directors & Others
M/s. Earth Infrastructures Ltd.,,
B-100, Nariyana Industrial Area, Phase-1,
New Delhi
Also at:
The Earth Infrastructures Ltd.,,
B-100, Nariyana Industrial Area, Phase-1,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
O R D E R
Per R.C. Yadav, Member
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has booked a space measuring 150 Sq. Feet in IT Project Earth Teach situated at Plot No. 1. Sector Teach Zone, Greater Noida, UP. The complainant has paid total amounts Rs. 5,27,850/- in different installments as per the demand of OP. The receipts of payment are Annexure- A to E. As per MoU of the company, the OP has committed to pay interest @ 12 % per annum. The OP has not paid the commitment amount for the month of August 2014, September 2014 and August 2015 till date and has not replied his emails, letters and reminders. The copy of the letters and reminders which were written to OP is Annexure- F to L. The two cheques of Rs. 5,245/- each have been returned back from the bank due to “STOPPED BY DRAWER” by the OP which is Annexure-M and N. The OP has neither handed over the possession of the space, nor refunded his deposited money. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 5,27,850/- with interest @ 12% per annum along with outstanding cheques and Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and litigation charges. The complainant also prayed to pass any order which deems fit and proper.
The OP was served and filed his written statement taking several preliminary objections that the complainant has failed to make timely payments as per the mutually agreed terms mentioned in the clause. The OP has admitted the receipt of money Rs. 5,27,850/- in his written statement as per MoU. Hence, complaint may be dismissed on the ground that the complainant has not performed on their part to made further payments for the space. The OP has stated in his written statement that the complainant has booked commercial project and this Commission has no jurisdiction for such matters. The OP has not filed the evidence hence opportunity to file evidence was closed on 09/08/2018.
The complainant has filed affidavit of evidence in support of his case.
On 26/09/2023, we have heard the complainant in person and the matter was reserved for order.
We have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
It is the case of the complainant that he has booked a space measuring 150 Sq. Feet at Plot No. 1, Sector Teach Zone, Greater Noida, UP and paid Rs. 5,27,850/- in different installments as per the demand of OP. The receipt of the paid money is attached. The OP has neither handed over the space nor refunded his money. The OP has assured to pay interest @ 12 % per annum. It is also his case that he had paid Rs. 5,27,850/- to the OP as per the terms and conditions but despite payment, the possession of the space was not handed over to him. It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the space, he asked for refunded of his deposited amounts but the same has not been refunded despite repeated requests. It is his case that this conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP has not denied the booking of the space in their written statement stating that this is a matter on record.
It is also stated that they could not refund money as the complainant has not paid due installments in time. The OP has stated that the case of contractual in nature and this case should not come to Consumer Commission for redressal. As per as the plea of Arbitration clause between the parties is concerned, the same is not relevant as Sect-3 and Sec of 100 CPC do not bar is filing of such complaint, despite their having Arbitrator Clause between the parties. The OP has not handed over on the possession of space and money was not refunded to the complainant, however, these reasons and not relevant to the issue and the OP was under obligation to hand over the space on payment of booked amount and in case it does not possible that it should have refunded the amount as claimed by the complaint. Non delivery of possession of space on receipt of the money within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
“Arif-u-Rehman Khan Vs. DLF Southern Home Pvt. Limited (2020) 16 SCC 512 is an authority on this point.”
In the end, it is clear from the record that the complainant has paid money for the space but the possession of the space was not handed over to the complainant. The OP was under obligation to refund his money. We are satisfied that this act on the part of OP constitute deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Accordingly, we allow that complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs. 5,27,580/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of booking the space along with Rs. 90,000/- lump sum for the mental and litigation charges within 45 days of the receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall be payable with interest @ 9% per annum 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 25/10/2023 at 3.30 PM.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.