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.99/2013
SH. RAJESH SINGHAL
01-A, VAIKUNTH PARK SOCIETY,
1ST FLOOR SAI BABA TEMPLE ROAD,
OPP. 27, GAME SCHOOL, ANAND-388001
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S LANDMARK APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.
A-8, CHITTARANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI-110023
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 09.08.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that in the month of May 2011 he was desirous of purchasing of immoveable property in Gurgaon for his personal use. Accordingly complainant contacted OP company and shown his interest in purchasing a 3 BHK apartment in the upcoming project of OP company named “Landmark – the Residency” which was situated at Gurgaon, Haryana. Accordingly, complainant signed proforma terms and conditions for provisional allotment of residential apartments. Clause 10 of the provisional terms and conditions stated that timely payment of each instalment is necessary and in the event of failure to pay such instalment, the entire booking amount would stand forfeited. Further, it was assured that the possession of said apartment would be handed over within a period of 36 months from the date of execution of the Flat Buyers Agreement.
It is stated that no payment schedule was ever given to the complainant or provided for. Hence the complainant was liable to pay amount on as and when demand notice would be raised on the complainant. Upon signing the proforma terms and conditions for provisional allotment, complainant paid a total sum of Rs.5,90,000/- to the OP by June 2011. However, no steps were taken by the OP towards construction of the project.
It is further stated that complainant visited the site in the month of December 2011 and it was found that no construction had commenced. In fact, it was found that the farmers, from whom the land had been acquired, were not paid the agreed compensation and various litigations in the courts were pending against such illegal action. In fact a period of one year had passed but the construction had not even begun. Ultimately the complainant vide letter dated 06.02.2012 was constrained to cancel the booking and sought refund of the amount with interest. Instead of refunding the booking amount, the OP vide letter dated 17.03.12 cancelled the booking and informed the complainant that the booking amount stood forfeited in the light of the fact that the complainant had not paid the dues in terms of the payment schedule.
It is submitted that the said letter was completely illegal and based on a false promise, with an intention to defraud the complainant. Firstly, it is stated that no payment schedule had ever been supplied to complainant. Hence there was no question of either adhering to such schedule or being breach of it. Secondly, no demand letter was raised against the complainant for paying any amount whatsoever. Complainant made several representations dated 30.04.12, 14.06.12, 17.07.12 requesting OP to refund the amount but to no avail. Ultimately this complaint was filed. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount i.e. Rs.5,90,000/- alongwith 18% interest p.a. plus Rs.2 lakhs for compensation.
OP was duly served but nobody appeared for the OP. Accordingly OP was proceeded ex parte on 08.10.2013.
Perusal of the documents shows that complainant has paid for construction link plan. Complainant has specifically stated that in fact the farmers from whom the land was purchased were not paid the compensation and litigations were pending in the court against such illegal action. Therefore there is no question of cancellation of allotment since as per averments of the complainant, the project has not started at all. Moreover, OP has never demanded payment of instalment. The statement of complainant remained unchallenged. In fact OP cancelled the allotment after the refund of the amount was sought by the complainant as there was no progress towards the construction of the project. It is a case of clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP.
So far as jurisdiction of this Forum is concerned, complainant has specifically stated in his additional affidavit that he contacted OP at its branch office situated at A-8 Chittranjan Park, New Delhi and he had been provided with the proforma terms and conditions from the branch office. Moreover his process issued by this Forum was also served on the branch office situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum hence this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
OP is directed to refund Rs.5,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from March 2012. OP is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards 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