Haryana

StateCommission

CC/70/2020

NARENDER KUMAR MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MERA BABA REAL ESTATE - Opp.Party(s)

O.P. GUPTA

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

                  

                                                Consumer Complaint  No.70  of  2020

Date of the Institution:04.03.2020

Date of order:  25.04.2023

 

Sh. Narender Kumar Mittal, S/o Sh.Suraj Bhan, R/o 240 M, Anaj Mandi, Narela, Delhi.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

M/s Mera Baba Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office, C-165, Pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034.

 

                                                          .….Opposite Party

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Pritam Lal Sehgal, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

 

O R D E R

 

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The facts leading upto the present complaint are that the opposite party  at the threshold itself mis-represented before complainant that it was having  all types of licenses, sanctions and permissions to raise and establish a residential colony in Gannaur, Sonepat as “Divine City” and under such false assurance complainant got booked a residential plot of 500 sq. yds with the opposite party (OP). The cost of the plot  was agreed to be @ Rs.6600/- per sq. yards i.e. Rs.33,00,000/-. The registration form dated 31.03.2006 was not provided by the OP to him.  He gave a cheque of Rs.4,62,000/- as demanded by the OP bearing No.105112 dated 22.02.2006 drawn at Central Bank of India, Narela, Delhi against provisional registration receipt No.BCD000948 dated 30.03.2006 with the assurance that the allotment of plot will be done within 12 months of the booking and next installment of 10% amount will be payable on such allotment. The complainant requested the OP to provide some documents other than the receipt/letter dated 04.03.2011, but, to no avail. The OP served a letter dated 04.03.2011 in which payment of Rs.32,61,066/- has been demanded as total outstanding amount with interest without any detail.  After receiving said letter, he visited the office of OP at Delhi and sought the detail of the said demand amount but no such details were arranged by the OP. He again visited the office of the OP in January 2012, but  clerk sitting in the office replied the same answer. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice dated 13.01.2020 to the OP, but the said notice was returned with the remarks, “Left without address”. He found the new address of OP and sent the said notice on 17.01.2020 and the said letter was delivered in the office of the OP but OP did not answer the same till date.  The OP has violated the law as well as has shown complete disregard to the registration form dated 31.03.2006 and failed to allot the plot withing time. The booking of the plot could not be done without mandatory license as per Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The license was obtained by OP only on 03.12.2007 and for this reason alone the booking of plot was void and illegal.  He requested the OP to pay Rs.4,62,000/-  as deposited amount alongwith interest of Rs.18% per annum, but to no avail. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the op, hence the complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was issued against the O.P. and the written statement was filed.  Objections regarding complaint being barred by limitation,  accruing cause of action, concealments of true facts etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.  It was further submitted that   The complainant earlier had also filed a complaint No.1152 of 2008 dated 14.11.2008 before District Forum, North West CSC Block Shalimar Bagh, Delhi which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 16.09.2009. It is matter of record that complainant booked the plot  in the future project of the answering respondent.   It was denied that complainant got booked for a plot of 500 sq. yards rather the complainant got booked for a plot of only 350 sq. yards. The basic cost of the said plot was fixed @ Rs.6600/- per sq. yards. At the time of provisional registration the complainant deposited 20% of the basic cost i.e. Rs.4,62,000/- against total basic cost of Rs.23,10,000/-.    After the application moved by the complainant for registration of plot, the answering OP called upon the complainant and requested to deposit the second installment of 20% and get the allotment of plot done in his favour but complainant himself delayed the same  and never turned up to perform his part for allotment despite repeated request letters and reminders.  The answering OP requested the complainant vide letter and reminders dated 23.06.2008, 26.12.2008, 02.04.2009, 09.05.2009, 13.12.2010, but complainant did not  deposit the balance amount and ultimately, the OP issued a final letter dated 08.03.2011 calling upon the complainant to deposit the total outstanding dues of Rs.32,61,066/- including interest within 15 days, otherwise his booking amount will be forfeited. Letter dated 08.03.2011 issued by the OP to him was quite reasonable, legal and binding on the complainant. The application moved by the complainant to the respondent/company was for provisional registration of plot only in the future/forthcoming project of the company, which was well mentioned in the application form itself. The OP after obtaining the license has developed the project in  patches and has delivered the possession of unit to hundreds of allottees and also executed the conveyance deeds thereof.  The complainant was not entitled for the deposited amount as  the amount deposited by the complainant stood forfeited. The complaint was hopelessly time barred and same was not legally maintainable. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit as Ex.CA of Mr.Narender Kumar Mittal vide which he reiterated all the averments raised in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant, O.P. has tendered the affidavits of Mr.Rajneesh Kumar Authorised representative as Ex.RW/A  alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-15 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                The arguments were advanced by Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Pritam Lal Sehgal, learned counsel for opposite parties.  With their kind assistance entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever material has been led during the proceedings of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

6.                As per the basic averment raised in the complaint and the reply filed thereto including the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the present complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount which he had already deposited, alongwith the interest? 

7.                It is admitted that the plot in question was booked by the complainant.  It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.4,62,000/- as per receipt  Ex.C-1 was deposited as booking amount with the OP.  It is also admitted that the complainant got issued legal notice to execute more documents, but, OP did not relent.  It is also admitted that complainant earlier filed complaint before District Forum,   North West CSC Block Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, but due to non appearance, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution.  The version of the complainant was that he booked plot of 500 sq. yards, whereas the version of the OP was that complainant requested to book plot of 350 sq yards. Perusal of present complaint shows that complainant deposited Rs.4,62,0000/- on 22.02.2006 with the OP, whereas in the earlier complaint filed by complainant, the complainant deposited Rs.3,30,000/- on 20.02.2006.  It is clear that complainant alleged to have deposited different amounts in both the complaints.   The complaint is not time barred because amount sought to be refunded by the complainant has not been refunded, hence the cause of action is continuing.

8.                In view of the above submission and after careful perusal of the entire record, a common experience that it is the normal trend of the developers/O.Ps. that  developer would generally collect their hard earned money  from  the  individuals and happens to invest the funds in some other projects as a result thereof the project  for which the investors have invested their hard earned money gets stuck and is not completed.  The OP have not produced on record the occupation certificate issued by the competent authority, which would show the  true status of this project as of now.   Resultantly,  the delivery of possession or completion of the project was also delayed in the present case.  When the project is not complete as such, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there was deficiency in service of opposite parties  and thus, complainant is well within his legal rights to get the refund of the amount of Rs.4,62,000/-  (Four lacs Sixty Two thousand Only)   which he had already deposited with the O.P. alongwith interest   

9.                In the light of the above observation and discussion, there are sufficient grounds to accept the complaint and while accepting the complaint,  the O.P. is directed to refund of the amount of Rs.4,62,000/-  (Four lacs Sixty Two thousand Only)  alongwith interest @ 9%  per annum from  the date of deposit till realization.    In case, there is a breach in making payment within the stipulated period  of  45 days, in that eventuality, the complainant would further be entitled to get the interest @ 12% per annum, for the defaulting period.   It is also made clear that for non-compliance, the provisions enshrined under section 72 of the C.P.Act  would also be attractable. 

10.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

April 25th, 2023                                            S.P.Sood

                                                                             Judicial Member                                 

S.K.(Pvt.Secy)