Delhi

StateCommission

CC/1273/2015

PRATAP CHANDRA SINHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KINDLE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT KUMAR

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 19.01.2016

Complaint No.1273/15

In the matter of:

Pratap Chandra Sinha,

S/o Sh. Pramathesh Kumar Sinha,

1, P.C. Bose Road, Danapur Cantt.

Patna, Bihar.                                                                              …..........Complainant

 

Versus

1. M/s. Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd. Office : B-9, Second Fllor,

Model Town, Delhi-110009.

 

2. Piyush Tiwari,

Director,

M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o D-203, Sector-47,

Noida, UP.

 

3. Sikha Tiwari,
4.  

M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o D-203, Sector-47,

Noida, UP.

 

4. Vipul Jain,

Director,

M/s. Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o 64, AGCR Enclave,

•  

 

5. Sanjay Nijhawan,
6.  

M/s Kindle Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o 67, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg,

•                                                    …....Opp. Parties

                                                                

 

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Present  :  Sh. Rohit Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.

 

          Heard on admission.

 

1. The case of complainant is that he booked an apartment No. T1/B312 in Subhkamna Lords in an upcoming residential scheme to be constructed by the OP-1 in Sector-79, Noida, UP for Rs.64,37,500/-.  He paid Rs.25,59,406/-.  The OP-1 had to deliver possession at the end of 36 months.

 

2. He came to Delhi In January, 2015, went to the contruction site only to find that there was insignificant progress and by no stretch of imagination could the project be completed within stipulated period. Being dissatisfied with unsatisfactory progress towards completion of project, complainant decided to withdraw from the project and wrote email on 03.02.2015 to OP demanding his money back.  He received reply on 04.02.2015 telling him procedure of refund.  The complainant wrote a letter on 10.02.2015.  Hence, this complaint for return of Rs.25,59,406/- alongwith interest @18% directing OPs to pay interest @18% on Rs.12,18,071/- for making unlawful gains to themselves and causing unlawful loss to the complainant, directing OPs to pay Rs.10 lacs for causing severe mental loss and agony to the complainant for keeping his hard earned money with them and making him run to pillar to post for refund of his money.

 

3. At the very outset, it is mentioned that booking a flat was situated in Noida, agreement was executed in Noida as is clear from the copy of non-judicial stamp paper at page-14 and copy of application form at page-15.  Hence, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction.

 

4. The other fact is that as per clause 29 of the Builder Buyers’ Agreement at page-31, the OP was to handover the physical possession of the apartment within 36 months from start of the construction i.e. 1^st August, 2013.  That time has not yet arrived and the complaint is premature.

 

5. The complaint is dismissed in limini.

 

6. One copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

7. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                          (S. C. Jain)

Member

​