Case No.CC/297/2017

Date of Institution:-30.05.2017

Order Reserved on :-25.07.2024

           Date of Order :-07.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Sarabjit Singh Virk

S/o Kulwant Singh Virk

R/o V3/1, DLF Phase-3,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122002.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. M/s RVA Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

Having its office at :

109, 1^st Floor, Tower No.3,

DLF Jasola, New Delhi.

2. Ms. Nancy Bhatia

Director,

M/s RVA Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

9 & 16, 2^nd Floor, Varun Tower,

Sector-20B, Near ArjondaChowk,

Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.

3. Sh. Nand Kishore

Director,

M/s RVA Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

2751, Sector-3,

Housing Board Colony,

Ballabhgarh, Faridabad,

Haryana – 121001.

4. Sh. Manish Tiwari

Director,

M/s RVA Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

R-266, Adarsh Colony,

NH-4, N.I.T. Faridabad,

Haryana – 121001

5. Sh. Sanjay Adhana

H. No. 220, Sector-14,

Faridabad, Haryana – 121001.

… Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are thatthe complainant has booked a plot measuring 100 sq. yd. @ Rs.2600/- per sq. yd. and deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/- to OP-1’s HSBC bank account on 12.10.2012.  The complainant has also paid Rs.2,11,000/- in cash on 12.10.2012. The total paid money toward the payment of booked plot was Rs.2,60,000/-.  Copy of the filled up form showing entire payment is annexed as Annexure-C.   The complainant was allotted plot no. A-174 and 175 measuring 100 sq. yd. in the said residential colony at Village Sikanderpur, Greater Noida, U.P.   A sale deed was executed between the complainant and OP.   The same was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, SadarGautamBudh Nagar, U.P. vide sale deed dated 14.06.2013. Copy of sale deed are annexed as Annexure-D (Colly). The OP-3 has assured the complainant for physical handing ove3r the possession of the plot after one week.  That on the fixed date, the complainant went to the site of the project for taking physical possession of the plot no. A-174 and 175 measuring 100 sq. yd. at village SikanderpurGautamBudh Nagar, Noida UP. The complainant came to know that there was a dispute on the plot booked by the complainant and the same was sold many persons by the OP.  the complainant waited for few months and visited the office of the OPs several times to execute the new sale deed and possession of the plot but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant met OP-5, who was real proprietor of OP-1. The OP-5 has assured the complainant the land of the scheme project had been purchased and belong to him and there is no further dispute in the land. The OPs have breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, which comes under the ambit of deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.3,25,000/- alongwith Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and cost of litigation.
2. Notice was served to OP. But OP did not attend the proceedings before this Commission and OP was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 09.04.2018. 
3. The complainant has filed Ex-parte evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
4. On 25.07.2024, the case was listed for argumentsbut none were present and the case was reserved for orders.
5. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly.
6. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant has booked a plot measuring 100 sq. yd. @ Rs.2600/-  per sq. yd. and deposited a sum of Rs.49,000/- to OP-1’s HSBC bank account on 12.10.2012.  The complainant has also paid Rs.2,11,000/- in cash on 12.10.2012. The total paid money toward the payment of booked plot was Rs.2,60,000/-.  The complainant was allotted plot no. A-174 and 175 measuring 100 sq. yd. in the said residential colony at Village Sikanderpur, Greater Noida, U.P.   A sale deed was executed between the complainant and OP.   The same was registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, SadarGautamBudh Nagar, U.P. vide sale deed dated 14.06.2013. The OP-3 has assured the complainant for physical handing ove3r the possession of the plot after one week.  That on the fixed date, the complainant went to the site of the project for taking physical possession of the plot no. A-174 and 175 measuring 100 sq. yd. at village SikanderpurGautamBudh Nagar, Noida, U.P. The complainant came to know that there was a dispute on the plot booked by the complainant and the same was sold many persons by the OP.The complainant waited for few months and visited the office of the OPs several times to execute the new sale deed and possession of the plots but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant met OP-5, who was real proprietor of OP-1. The OP-5 has assured the complainant that the land of the scheme project had been purchased and belongs to him and there is no further dispute in the land. The OPs have breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, which comes under the ambit of deficiency of service. The complainant has paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the OP and receipts are attached with the complaint case.
7. It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the plots so sought the refund for the deposited amount, but the same has not been refunded despite repeated requests.  It is his case that this conduct of the OP amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Non delivery of the possession of the plot on receipt ofthe booked amount within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.

Supreme court judgment in the case of Kolkata West International City Vs. DebasisRudra dated 25.03.2019 Civil Appeal No. 3182/2019 in an authority on this point.

8. It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the plots, he asked to refund the deposited amount. But the same has not been refunded by the OP.   The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is believed. From the facts of the case and evidence placed on the record, it is clear that the deposit receipt of Rs.2,60,000/- from the complainant, the OP has neither handed over the possession of the plots nor refunded the amount to the complainant and this act apparently and clearly constitutes deficiency in service, monopolistic and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
9. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Thousand)alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) as lumpsumfor mental harassment and litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from date of receipt of order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @ 9% p.a.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 07.08.2024.