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
- Mrs. Neelima Gulati
R/o 286, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar
Delhi-110009
- 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.