CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.94/2010
MRS. KANTA CHAUDHARY
W/O MR. ASHU CHAUDHARY
CHAMBER NO.283A, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI-110001
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S ENGINEERS & DEVELOPERS
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND REPRSENTED THROUGH PARTNERS)
OFFICE AT:- K-1/32, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110019
MR. BAPPI DUTTA AND MR. PALL CHAUDHARY
R/O D-756, C.R. PARK, NEW DELHI-110019
- RICHFIELDS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1860)
MR. PALL CHAUDHARY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:-
C-101/A, GROUND FLOOR, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX,
SAIDULLAHA JAB, NEW DELHI-110017
- SHRI ANIL KUMAR
C-101/A, GROUND FLOOR, PARYAVARAN COMPLEX,
SAIDULLAHA JAB, NEW DELHI-110017
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 26.08.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia, Member
The case of complainant is that complainant was allotted a flat in a project named “Kailash Tower” developed by OP-1 and OP-2. Complainant imputes that the cost of flat was Rs.30 lakhs and she deposited 10% of the total cost i.e. Rs.3 lakhs. It is stated that OP-1 is a partnership firm and OP-2 is a private limited company both of which are duly engaged in the business of development and construction of buildings. Complainant was allotted a flat bearing No.31 and was assured that the possession would be given to her by January 2008.
It is further alleged that the construction by the OP have been stopped by Delhi Development Authority as being illegal and unauthorized construction. The project could not be completed and the possession could not be handed over to complainant. It is averred that Rs.1 lakh was refunded by OP-1. Complainant prayed for the refund of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. The cheques paid by complainant to OP-1 and OP-2 are annexed with the complaint. Complainant has also filed receipt of OP-1 for Rs.35,000/-.
OP-1 in the reply and the affidavit has stated that OP-1 has never undertaken to build project in the name of Kailash Tower. OP-1 has no relationship or connection with OP-2 or OP-3.. OP-1 admits the receipt of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.35,000/-.
Perusal of the file reveals that OP-2 and OP-3 were served but none appeared on their behalf. The order dated 15.03.13 shows that the service to OP-2 and OP-3 has been affected by way of newspaper publication and they were proceeded ex parte.
We have considered the pleading filed by the parties alongwith corresponding documents. Photocopies of the cheques annexed with the complaint shows that three cheques in the name of OP-2 for Rs.50,000/- each and two cheques in the name of OP-1 for Rs.45,000/- and Rs.35,000/- have been issued. The complainant has also filed photocopy of cheques received from OP-1 for Rs.1 lakh.
The receipt for Rs.35,000/- issued by OP-1 which is annexed with the complaint has been disputed by OP-1. As OP-1 has admittedly already refunded Rs.1,00,000/- against Rs.80,000/- deposited by complainant with OP-1, no complaint against OP-1 is made out.
As far as OP-2 is concerned, it was proceeded ex parte. As OP-2 has failed to controvert the allegation made by complainant. We are bound to believe the facts presented by complainant. The rendition of complainant is further substantiated by photocopy of three cheques annexed with the complaint.
The complainant has failed to show any privity of contract with OP-3.
In our considered view, OP-2 is guilty of deficiency in service and we direct it to pay Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith 9% interest from date of filing of complaint till realization. We also award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony including of litigation expenses.
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.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
