Delhi

New Delhi

CC/578/2015

Indu Dhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALFORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                      ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,      

                                            NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./578/2015                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Indu Dhawan,

Prop. Of Dhawan Investment,

10/C, Bharat Apartments,

Plot No. 31, patparganj,

Delhi-110092                                                        ……..COMPLAINANT

 

 

       

VERSUS

1. Parsvath Developer Pvt. Ltd.

          Regd, & Corporation Office:

         6^th Floor, Arunchal, 19^th Barakhamba Road,    

         New Delhi-110001

          Through its Managing Director

 

          Also At:

          Parsvnath Metro Tower,

          Near Shahdara Metro Station,

           Shahdara, Delhi-110032

 

2.  Vardhman and Associates

            G.F. 20, Indira Prakash Building,

             21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

              Through its Proprietor                                  ….....OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

MEMBER: NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

 

Complainant booked residential plot admeasuring 300 sq.yds in the  up coming project of the OP1. It is alleged by the complainant that she paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to OP1 and the same was duly acknowledged by OP 1 vide receipt no. PC 000247, it is further alleged by the complainant that she further paid a sum of Rs. 3,63,000/- to the OP1 and the same was also duly acknowledged by OP 1 vide its receipt bearing NO. PC 00 2256 dt. 22.12.2005. It is alleged by the complainant that since 2005,she is continuously requesting the OP1 to take the balance amount and give the possession , but nothing has been heard from the side of OP1, as such she sent a legal notice dt. 30.04.2015 to the OPs thereby calling upon the OPs to take the balance amount and handover the possession or in the alternative to  refund the  amount deposited alongwith interest @ 24 % P.A. p.a. from 22.12.2005 till payment. The OPs neither sent the reply to the legal notice nor complied with same. Complainant, therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of her grievance.

The Complaint has been contested by OP1. Para no. 3 and 4 of the preliminary submission of W.S of OP1 are relevant and are reproduced as under:-

“        3. That the said plot was booked by one M/s Dhawan Investment i.e the name of the firm itself suggest its an investment firm .The complaint herein has been filed by the proprietor of the said firm Ms. Indu Dhawan i.e the complainant who is permanent resident of Delhi as admitted by the complainant herself in the complaint and has booked a plot in the upcoming project of the opposite party. It is clear by booking that the complainant has merely invested in the property for gaining profit from the booked plot.

          4. That the complaint has been filed by Mrs. Indu Dhawan and not by the  Dhawan Investment who had registered the plot. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.

Bothe the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

We have  heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

                    It is argued on behalf of complainant that on the lucrative promise of the OP, complainant booked residential plot long back in the year 2005, and paid a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- to the OP, but till today OP neither allotted the plot to the complainant  nor refunded the money. It is further argued on behalf of complainant that neither in its pleading nor it its oral argument OP had utter single words regarding the status of the project. Holding the sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- of the complainant since 2005 and not giving the possession or refunding the money amounts to deficiency in services, hence she is entitle for the reliefs claimed in the prayer clause of the complaint.

                   It is argued on behalf of OP 1 that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed by Mrs. Indu Dhawan and not by the Dhawan Investment who had registered the plot. It is further argued on behalf of OP1 that alleged plot in question was booked by one M/s Dhawan Investments i.e the name of the firm itself suggests its an investment firm, and the present complaint has been filed by the proprietor of the said firm, which clearly shows that complainant has merely invested in the property for gaining profits from the booked plot and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.     

                   It is settled legal position that a proprietorship firm only represent the proprietor and virtually there is no difference in between the proprietorship firm and proprietor. Therefore, if the proprietorix of the proprietorship firm has applied for the allotment of residential plot and the complaint is filed against the OP in the name of proprietorix, it does not non-suit the complainant /proprietor as there is no difference between the two in the legal sense.

                    As regard the objection of the OP that the name of the proprietorship firm shows that it was an investment firm. We do not accept this for the simple reason that the plot in question was booked by complainant is residential plot and not the commercial plot.     

Holding the sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- of the complainant since 2005 and not giving the possession or refunding the money amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP -1. We therefore hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:-

1. Refund to the complainant sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- along with interest @ 10%  p.a. from the date of  deposit  till payment.

 

2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him.

 

3. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP-1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs. 30,000/–.

 

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

 

File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on ________________.

 

                    (S K SARVARIA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

                                        (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                              (H M VYAS)

                                           MEMBER                                                           MEMBER