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.244/2011
SMT. SHASHI GOYAL
W/O SH. LALIT KUMAR GOYAL
R/O 179, SECTOR-23, GURGAON, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S PIYUSH COLONISERS LTD.
A-16/B-1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENT
AND
Case No.245/2011
SH. LALIT KUMAR GOYAL
S/O SH. SHYAM LAL GOYAL,
R/O 179, SECTOR-23, GURGAON, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S PIYUSH COLONISERS LTD.
A-16/B-1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 09.09.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
By this order we shall dispose of the aforesaid complaints as the common question of fact and law is involved. For the sake of reference, facts of case No.244/2011 are detailed.
Complainant booked a residential plot in the integrated township project “Piyush City” of OP at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on 28.05.08 and was allotted plot bearing No.B-86 which was renumbered as B-83 having an area of approximately 224 sq. yards. Complainant initially paid a sum of Rs.4,12,549/- and thereafter paid a sum of Rs.1,22,293/- and further paid Rs.1,22,292/- in May 2008, in all complainant paid a total amount of Rs.6,57,134/- to OP and this evident from the letter dated 07.09.10. Further vide letter dated 26.10.10, complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,20,049/-. Complainant vide letter dated 24.01.11 sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards part payment of the alleged overdue amount of Rs.4,20,049/- and in the said letter complainant stated that he had already applied for the loan from the LIC of India and the balance amount shall be paid to the OP as early as possible. However, OP in a malafide manner and with an ulterior motive, returned the said demand draft.
It is further stated that Complainant has already paid Rs.6,57,134/- and is willing to pay the balance amount and the OP is bound to hand over the possession of the plot. It is stated that it is a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that OP be directed to hand over the possession of the plot on payment of the balance amount of Rs.4,20,049/- or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper.
OP in its reply took the plea that in fact the complainant has suppressed the fact. It is stated that in fact OP has issued demand letters dated 26.10.10, 10.11.10 and 26.11.10 for making the payment of the long outstanding dues however complainant did not come forward to make the payment. Consequently, OP vide letter dated 10.12.10 followed by letter dated 20.12.10 cancelled the allotment in favour of complainant and called upon complainant to return the original receipts and to seek the refund of the amount paid by complainant after necessary deduction of 20% of total amount deposited by the complainant. The complainant thereafter in a clandestine manner, on 24.01.11, sent a cheque for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to OP which was returned by OP to the complainant promptly as the allotment in favour of the complainant already stood cancelled. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The first contention raised by Ld. Counsel for OP is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the plot in question is not situated in territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the same is situated in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.
We do not find any force in the statement of Ld. Counsel for OP. It is significant to note that the entire transaction took place in the registered office of OP which is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. All the letters were issued from that very office. Cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum hence this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
The next submission made by Ld. Counsel for OP is that in fact complainant is not a consumer rather complainant has booked the plot only for the purpose of investment. It is submitted that apart from the complainant, her husband has also booked a plot in the same project and for that complaint No.245/11 has been filed. It is submitted that it is settled law that if husband and wife book two plots it amounts to commercial transaction.
Again we do not find any force in the statement of Ld. Counsel for OP. Ld. Counsel for OP referred to judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Sh. Sunil Gupta Vs M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. – C.C.No.6 of 2014 – decided on 03.02.2014 – where it was held that even when a consumer has booked more than one unit of residential premises; it amounts to booking of such premises for investment/commercial purpose.
Again we do not find any force in the submission of OP. There is no bar for booking of two plots, one by husband and another by wife as both husband and wife are independent tax payers. Moreover, the Hon’ble National Commission recently in case of Kavita Ahuja Vs M/s Shipra Estate Ltd. & Jai Krishan Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. – C.C.No.137 of 2010 decided on 12.02.2015 - has held that simply because of the complainant had agreed to purchase more than one flat does not mean that the transaction is commercial. In view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, we are of the opinion that transaction is not commercial in nature.
It is proved on record that that total price of flat was Rs.11,36,253/- and out of that complainant has paid a sum of Rs.6,57,134/-. The balance amount of Rs.4,20,049/- required to be paid. It is true that OP has issued the letters dated 26.10.10, 10.11.10 and 26.11.10 asking for balance payment and that balance payment was not made, however, it is significant to note that complainant has sent a letter to OP and in that letter complainant has specifically stated that “as per telephonic discussion with Mrs. Shweta and thereafter meeting with Mrs. Shweta and Mr. Rakesh at your office situated at Sector-16 Faridabad on dated 12.01.11, please find enclosed herewith a DD issued by Indian Bank bearing No.350165 dated 24.01.11 for the amount of Rs.1 lakh on account of part payment due for the above mentioned plot”, meaning that some talks have taken place between the complainant and the officials of OP and only thereafter the bank draft was issued. It is a fact that complainant sent the demand draft however the same was returned by OP. It is a fact that complainant has not paid balance instalment despite number of demand letters issued by OP but there is nothing on the record to show that OP was within its right to deduct 20% of the booking amount. OP has not placed anything on the record to show that they were within their right to deduct the said amount. Moreover, OP has not responded to the letter dated 24.01.11 by which a demand draft of Rs.1 lakh was sent.
Since the allotment has already been cancelled long back on account of non payment of the amount, it will be appropriate in this case if OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
In Case No.245/11 also, OP is directed to refund the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied 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
