Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 263.
Instituted on : 11.06.2018.
Decided on : 03.10.2019.
Mrs. Seema w/o Sh. Ashok Kundu, Age 34 years, R/o V.P.O. Titoli, The & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M2M Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. D-44, 3rd Floor, Sector-6 Noida-201301(U.P.) through its Managing Director/Chairman.
Corporate Office: 345, Tower B, Spaze Edge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001.
- Managing Director, M2M Buildtech Private Ltd. M2M Greens, Kheri Sadh Bye Pass, Delhi Road Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Y.S.Dalal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. H.C.Sikri, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had booked one flat with the respondents and had paid an amount of Rs.400000/- through cheque No.000005 on dated 08.03.2013 drawn on BOB Bank vide receipt No.MBI/12-13/347 dated 15.03.2013. That complainant was assured that the possession of the flats will be given within 1 year but the OPs did not start the construction on the site which was advertised and booked by the OPs more than 5-6 years back. In this way, OPs did not fulfill their promise. That the respondents have neither started the construction work nor allotted any flat to complainant till date. That complainant has came to know that the O.P has no license to develop the residential sector i.e. flats on the land which was advertised by the opposite party and in this way they have cheated the complainant. That despite the repeated requests of the complainant, respondents did not release the above said amount. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the respondents to make the payment of Rs.400000/- alongwith interest, Rs.10000/- for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant, as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.400000/- vide receipt dated 15.03.2013 and has filed the complaint on 06.06.2018 i.e. after the expiry of statutory period of 2 years. That the complainant is not a consumer as the flat was not required by the complainant for his personal use, the present complaint is time barred by limitation. That the total value of the flat in dispute is more than 20 lakhs i.e. value of the jurisdiction of this Court. That this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the registered office/head office of the OPs is at Gurgaon. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 29.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that the reply already filed in this case, be read as affidavit in evidence, has closed his evidence on dated 06.08.2019.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case.
6. The objection as to commercial purpose was taken during the pendency of the complaint but OPs failed to place any cogent evidence or material which could prove that the flat was purchased for commercial purpose. Regarding the objection of pecuniary jurisdiction, the total relief claimed is less than Rs.20 lacs. So this objection is turned down. Regarding the objection of territorial jurisdiction, the office of opposite parties is situated at Rohtak and the flat in dispute is also situated at Rohtak, so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. On the offer of the opposite parties complainant paid Rs.400000/- which was accepted by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is a consumer.
7. After perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, we come to the conclusion that the respondents have received an amount of Rs.400000/- from the complainant as per receipt Ex.C2 dated 15.03.2013. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 23.05.2018 for refund of alleged amount but the same was not replied. This fact itself shows a great deficiency in service on the part of respondents. So the act of opposite parties itself is not only a grave deficiency in service, such deficiencies or omission tantamounts to unfair trade practice.
8. We have also placed reliance upon the law of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in III(2018)CPJ 374(NC) titled as Emaar MGF Land Vs. Gagan Gupta and TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Aditya Tomar. In view of the aforesaid law, which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that OPs are liable to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and compensation.
9. In view of the above, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.400000/-(Rupees four lacs only) which shall be paid by opposite parties alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment to the opposite parties till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.10.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
