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.236/2016

MR. RAMUTAR GOEL,

S/O SH. JAYNARAYAN GOEL

R/O A-30, BROTHERHOOD SOCIETY,

H-3, BLOCK, VIKAS PURI, DELHI-110018

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                             

Vs.

M/S PIYUSH COLONISERS LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,

A-16/B-1, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

MAIN MATHURAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044

                                  …………..RESPONDENT

                                 Date of Order:07.01.2019

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav - President

The case of the complainant is that OP was developing a project under the name and style of “Piyush Eco Village” at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan.  The complainant was in need of a residential plot for his use.  The agents of OP contacted the complainant for resale of residential plot in the aforesaid project.  On the assurance of OP that the possession will be delivered in next three years, the complainant booked a residential plot after paying transfer charges of Rs.5,680/- on 15.04.2013.  Thereafter the complainant received a demand letter in June 2013 whereby OP demanded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which was paid vide cheque dated 29.06.2013.  Thereafter the complainant received next demand letter on 25.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.1,21,961/- which was paid by the complainant in July 2014.  In all the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,71,960/- but OP failed to complete the project.  The complainant contacted OP number of times about the handing over the possession of the plot but OP even stopped responding to the queries of the complainant.  Under these circumstances the complainant was compelled to send a legal notice dated 03.06.2016 for refund of the amount.  The amount was not refunded even after service of legal notice. 

It is further stated that OP illegally retained the amount of the complainant for about four years and the possession was not handed over.  Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has sought refund of the amount of Rs.5,71,961/- alongwith interest and also sought compensation.

Nobody appeared for OP despite service of notice hence OP was proceeded ex parte. 

It is proved from the unchallenged testimony of the complainant that the initial payment was made in December 2012 and the last payment of Rs.1,21,961/- was made in July 2014.  The complainant paid a total sum of Rs.5,71,960/-, however, OP failed to complete the project.  The complainant was constrained to send a legal notice dated 03.06.16 for refund of the amount but the amount was not refunded.  Even after passing of four years, OP failed to hand over the possession hence the complainant was constrained to file this complainant in July 2016.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

. 

OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,71,961/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective payment.  OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with 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.

                 (H.C. SURI)                                                                      (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT