Delhi

South West

CC/17/55

MRS NEELIMA GULATI & ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KLAZINA CONSULTANTS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/55
( Date of Filing : 09 Jan 2017 )
 
1. MRS NEELIMA GULATI & ANR
R/O 266, DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR, DELHI-110009
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S KLAZINA CONSULTANTS LIMITED
K-37C, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI-48
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SH,SURESH KUMAR GUPTA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. HARSHALI KAUR MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. RAMESH CHAND YADAV MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
None
......for the Complainant
 
None
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 22 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

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/55/2017

Date of institution:02.02.2017

Date of Order:22.05.2023

  1. Mrs. Neelima Gulati

            R/o 286, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar

            Delhi-110009

 

  1. Dr. Harsh Gulati

R/o Dr. Mukherjee Nagar

  •  

 

Vs

 

M/s Khazina  Consultants Limited

K-37C, Kailash Colony

New Delhi-110048

 

Also At :

 

M/s Klazina Consultants Limited

204, 2nd Floor, Tower-A

IRIS Tech Park, Sohna Road

Sec-48, Gurgaon.                                                                    …..OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

1.    The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant has applied for residential plot measuring 144 sq. yards on 10.9.2012 in the project “Neemrana Gateway NH-8, Rajasthan.  The complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- for registration to OP which is annexed as annexure ‘A’.  The copies of the cheques and acknowledgements of money paid to OP is  annexure ‘B’.  The OP has confirmed the provisional registration of plot vide letter dt. 18.09.2012  to complainant which is  annexure ‘C’.  The complainant has paid total sum of Rs.3,20,400/- which was duly acknowledged by OP which is annexure ‘E’.  The complainant has approached OP for allotment of plot,  but OP has assured to hand over the possession very soon.  The complainant requested OP to hand over the plot but the OP has failed to hand over the possession of the plot.  The OP has allegedly misappropriated the funds which was collected from the complainant.  The complainant has prayed for refund of  Rs.3,20,400/- with Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for litigation charges.

2.  Notice of complaint  was served to OP.  OP did not appear to  attend the proceedings and  proceeded ex-parte vide order dt.31.5.2017.

3.  The complainant has filed  his affidavit in ex-parte evidence as well as written arguments in support of his case.

4.  We have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

5.  It is the case of the complainant that he has booked a residential plot in “Neemrana Gateway” NH-8, Rajasthan on the September, 2012 and had paid Rs.50,000/- for registration to the OP. It is also his case that he had Rs.3,20,400/- to the OP as per the terms and conditions but despite payment, the possession of the plot was not handed over to him.  It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the plot and asked for refund of the deposited amount but the same has not been refunded despite repeated request with the OP.  It is his case that this conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.  Non delivery of possession of plot on receipt of the booked amount within reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.  “Arifur Rehman Khan Vs DLF Southern Home Pvt. Ltd. (20:20/16SC512) is an authority on this point.

6.  It is the case of the complainant that when they did not get the possession of the plot, they asked to refund deposited amount but the same has not been refunded by OP.  The case of the complainant does not suffer from any factual or legal defect.  The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, uncontested and unrebutted and as such whatever has been placed on record is  believed.  From the facts of the case and evidence placed on record, it is clear that despite receipt of Rs.3,20,400/- from the complainant , the OP neither handed over the possession of the plot 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 OP.

7.  Accordingly, we allow the complainant and direct  the OP to refund Rs.3,20,400/- with a interest of 9% p.a from the date of deposit of money alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- as a lump sum money for mental agony and litigation charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay entire amount with interest of 12% per annum till realization.    

Copy of this order be given/sent to the party as per Rules.

        File be consigned to record room.

        Announced in the open court on 22.05.2023 at 3.30 pm.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SH,SURESH KUMAR GUPTA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. HARSHALI KAUR]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAMESH CHAND YADAV]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.