Delhi

StateCommission

CC/13/554

GAZAL GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2018

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:25.05.2018

 

 

Complaint Case No.554/2013

 

 

Gazal Garg,

Daughter of Shri Rajiv Garg,

Resident of 365, Jagriti Enclave,

Delhi-110092.

                                                              …Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

  1. M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Registered Office at: Parsvnath Metro Tower,

Near Shahdara Metro Station, Shahdara,

Delhi-110032.

Through its Director/A.R./Manager.

 

  1. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.,

Corporate Office at: 6th Floor, Arunchal Building 19,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

Through its Director/A.R./Manager.

 

                                                  ….Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

  1. The complainant herein has filed a consumer complaint against OP alleging that she had booked a plot measuring 500 sq. yds at Sonepat Scheme under P&F Projects of the OP and  made payment of Rs.6,56,250/- vide receipt No.PH001628 dated 01.03.2005 and further advance P&F payment of Rs.6,56,250/- vide receipt No.PH003416 dated 30.03.2006 to OP.  As per complainant, a total amount of R.13,12,500/- was paid to the OP for booking the plot.  It was alleged that OP had assured and promised to deliver the possession of plot within a period of 6 to 9 months from the date of registration/booking and also assured that if plot was not allotted within the prescribed time in that event, OP shall pay interest @ 10% on the amount already deposited with it.  It is alleged that the complainant had approached number of times to OP seeking possession of plot but no response is received.  It is stated that till date OP has not offered possession of the plot which was booked with it. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant  has made the following prayers:

“a)  issue appropriate direction to the Opposite Party for delivery/allotment/possession of the plot measuring 500 sq.yds., under Customer Code PH/G0015 at Sonepat Scheme under P&F Projects of the Opposite Party in favour the complainant;

 

b)   award interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant with the Opposite Party w.e.f. 2005 upto delivery of possession of the said plot;

 

c)   award compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant against the Opposite Party on account of mental agony, harassment, pain etc.;

 

d)   award cost of Rs.2,50,000/- as litigation charges in favour of the complainant against the Opposite Party;

 

e)   Any other or further order(s)/relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case may also kindly be passed in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party.”

  

  1. The complaint is opposed by respondent/OP by filing   reply wherein preliminary objection has been raised that complainant is an investor in the present project and not a ‘consumer’.  It is further alleged that the present matter involves complex questions of facts and law and the same cannot be examined by this Commission. 
  2. On merits, it is admitted that a plot was booked by the complainant in the aforesaid project of OP.  The complainant had paid Rs.13,12,500/- for the said plot.  It is stated that on 4.1.06, a letter was sent to complainant informing her that to enlist the name in the priority list for Sonepat plots, the complainant was required to remit a sum of Rs.13,12,500/- by 19.1.06.  The complainant did not deposit the said amount.  Due to said reason, possession was not delivered.  However, OP has denied that the possession of plot has been deliberately delayed.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
  3. Replication is filed by the complainant wherein preliminary objections raised and other allegations are denied.  The complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

5.           Both the parties filed evidence in the form of affidavits.

6.           Complainant has filed her own affidavit in the evidence wherein contents of the complaint case are reiterated on oath.  The complainant has proved on record the payment receipts and advance registration form, Ex-CW-1/1 (Colly).  A letter dated 25.5.11 of OP, Ex-CW-1/2 informing the complainant that allotment of plot in her favour may take some more time and that the terms of registration will continue to be applicable till the allotment of plot.

7.           On behalf of OP, affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chander Gupta, General Manager (CRM) has been filed who has reproduced the contents of written statement on oath.  OP has filed copy of letter dated 4.1.06, Ex-OP-1.

8.           We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9.           As regards preliminary objection that the complainant is an investor, nothing on record is placed by OP to substantiate the same.  It is not the case of the OP that complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling houses/plots on regular basis and is making profits.  OP has levelled bald allegation.  The objection raised in this regard is rejected.  Reliance is placed on the judgement of  Kavita Ahuja vs Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 1 (2016) CPJ 31 (NC).

   

10.         OP has also failed to show as to how the complicated questions of facts and law are involved in case.  The objection raised in this regard is also rejected.        

11.         It is admitted position that vide registration form, Ex-CW-1/1, the complainant had booked a plot in the project of OP and paid Rs.6,56,250/- towards booking amount.  Thereafter, further payment of Rs.6,56,250/- is given.  The registration form, payment receipts, Ex-CW-1/1 (Colly) are placed on record by the complainant.  It is also not disputed that no allotment of plot has been made so far in favour of the complainant.  OP has relied upon letter dated 4.1.06 to contend that further payment of Rs.13,12,500/- was not paid as such the plot was not allotted.  We have perused the said letter.  The said letter is only for enlisting the name in the priority list.  The aforesaid letter has been written to cover up the delay and to create false defence in its favour.  In fact vide letter dated 25.5.11, Ex-CW-1/2, OP has written to the complainant as under:

“This refers to your discussion had with us.  We appreciate your continued confidence reposed in us.  The allotment of the Plot in your favour may take some more time.  The terms of registration will continue to be applicable till the allotment of the plot.”

       

12.         Despite writing aforesaid letter to complainant, till date no plot has been allotted to complainant. In fact during arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP has fairly conceded that P&F project of OP has not come up as such plot cannot be allotted to complainant.  It is stated that OP is ready to refund the amount as per clause (f) of Booking Form dated 13.2.05 i.e. Ex-CW-1/1. The relevant clause is as under:

“Though the company shall try to make an allotment but in case it fails to do so for any reason whatsoever, no claim of any nature, monetary or otherwise would be raised by me/us except that the advance money paid by me/us shall be refunded to me/us with 10% simple interest per annum.”

 

13.         On reading above, it is clear that if for any reason, OP is not in a position to allot the plot in that event, the money shall be refunded by the OP with 10% simple interest per annum.

14.         In view of the above said terms and conditions of the booking, OP is liable to refund the amount deposited by complainant with interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount.  It may be mentioned that complainant had booked the plot in the project of OP at Sonepat in the year 2005.  When OP had come to know that the project is not going to come up, it ought to have returned the money of its own instead of dragging the consumer into litigation and causing harassment to him.  Further the   matter remained pending for 5 years before us.  Even during pendency, no such offer is made.

15.         In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions:

              1.  OP shall refund the entire amount of Rs.13,12,500/- to the complainant within 8 weeks from today along with paying simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of each payment till realization of the amount.

              2.  OP shall also pay Rs.1 lac for causing mental agony and harassment to complainant including cost of litigation to the complainant.

 

16.         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

sa

                                                

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.