District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 237/2020.
Date of Institution:06.08.2020.
Date of Order:.18.08.2023.
Ms. Ritu Garg W/o Sh. Sandeep Kumar, R/o Old Anaj Mandi, Post – Nuh, Distt. Mewat, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd., Nilonip Shahpur, Dankaur, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP – 203201 AND
117, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.
2. Prop Tiger Reality Pvt. Ltd. B-9/15, Ground floor, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057, India.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Nipun Anand, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anshum Jain, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Shri Shubham, Jr. Counsel for Shri Jayant Pawar in person on behalf of opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant made a booking of flat bearing NO. T15/102, First floor, Tower 15, Admeasuring 925 sq. ft. in the project which was floated with the name of Sunworld Vandita, TS-7, Sector 22D, Yamuna Expressway, U.P. The said booking was made through opposite party No2 vide client data form dated 21.12.2012 through which opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the client data form was just a formality which was executed in the absence of application form and the complainant should receive the original application form later for execution as the application form was under the process of revision, henceforth, client data form was to be filled as a substitute of application form alongwith the application money/registration amount, which was paid by the complainant vide cheque dated 23.12.2012 and the same was submitted and accepted by opposite party No.2 i.e Prop tiger Reality Pvt. Ltd. Bearing CIN No. U70102DL2006PTC32539. Later on, the Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. Referred to as “the Company/Builder/Colonizer had issued a booking confirmation letter dated 15.02.2013 acknowledging the receipt of application money dated 23.12.2012 alongwith a fresh demand of amount equivalent to INR 2,76,791/-. The total cost of the flat was INR 23.12.500/- excluding other charges including but not limited to IFMS, one time lease rent, PLC, DEC & FC, Power Backup, Club/Common facilities, car parking, etc. and the complainant had already paid a sum of INR 7,15,188/- which was 30% of the cost of basic flat in the following manner:
Amount (in INR) Date Mode
2,00,000/- 23.12.20212 Cheuqe No. 008570 (Union Bank of India)
2,76,791/- 27.04.2013 Cheque No. 040087 (Union Bank of India)
2,38,397/- 04.10.2013 Cheque No…………(Union Bank of India)
7,15,188 Total
Against which the company had issued the payment receipts dated 30.04.2013 and 04.10.2013 respectively. The company had issued a welcome letter dated 03.07.2013 claiming that they were known for their commitments and also claiming that they would stand on their moto of “We deliver what we commit”. The complainant had also received an allotment letter dated 09.07.2013 confirming the allotment of the flat No. T15/102, First floor, Tower -15 admeasuring 925 sq. ft. issued by the company. The booking was made by the complainant on 23.12.2012, however, even after a span of 8 years, the progress of work at the site was very slow and the construction work at the lower in which the flat had been allotted to the complainant had not at all started. Considering the circumstances as sated hereinabove, the complainant was seeking refund of the money paid by her to the opposite parties alongwith an interest for which the complainant had issued legal notice dated 18.3.2020 vide speed post. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) refund the amount of INR 7,15,188/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.12.2012 till its payment.
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complaint was silent on the date of possession and no builder buyer agreement executed between the parties. The opposite party submitted that there was no default in possession and the complainant had paid the amount in the year 2013 as admitted by herself in its complaint. Hence, the present complaint was barred by limitation as the complainant herein had filed beyond the statutory period of 2 years as prescribed under the Act. It was submitted that the alleged flat booked by the complainant was located in Greater Noida and the agreement was also executed at the earlier corporate office at Noida, UP. It was further submitted that registered office address of opposite party was shifted to Noida w.e.f 31.03.2018 from Delhi. Hence at the time of filing of the present petition no cause of action arose before this Hon’ble commission. However, subsequent to the above, various petitions were filed by the farmers against YEIDA before the Hon’ble High court of Allahabad for higher compensation in respect of some part of land allotted to the opposite party No.1. It was submitted that the dispute between farmers and YEID for higher compensation resulted in the stoppage of work of answering opposite party in developing the township as the farmers used to create agitation and did not allow opposite party construction in smooth manner thereby resulting huge loss to the answering opposite parties itself. The opposite party submitted that YEIDA who was a lessor of the land on which the construction of the project took place also did not prove the clear land and title of the possession of the land till date resulting a delay in the construction of the flat. Opposite party No. 1denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that it was suffice to mention that the complainant had no locus to file the present complaint against opposite party No.2 and further even on the merits, had no case at all against opposite party No.2. The opposite party being a mediator helped complainant to get the best deal possible and informed the cost etc. before making the application for said allotment of flat. Rom the above facts it was clear that opposite party No.2 had rendered all services to the complainants as promised without taking any consideration or money in lieu of their services from the complainant. Opposite party No. 2denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. with the prayer to: a) refund the amount of INR 7,15,188/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 21.12.2012 till its payment. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 25,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1 – affidavit of Ritu Garg,l-Ex.CW1/BA– Client data form, Ex.CW1/A - photocopy of cheque dated 23.12.2012, Ex.CW1/B – letter dated 15.02.2013,, Ex.CW1/C – reeipt, Ex.CW1/D – receipt, Eax.CW1/E – letter dated 03.07.2013,, Ex.CW1/F – letter date d09.07.2013,, Ex.CW1/G - legal notice,, Ex.CW1/H – postal receipt
On the other hand , counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per evidence of opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/a – affidavit of Sanjay Khanna s/o of Om Prakash Khanna having address at Nilonip, Shahpur, Dankaur, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, UP
As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 Ex.OP2-W/1 – affidavit of Reddappa Director of M/s Collab Innovative Services Pvt. (formerly Proptiger Realty Pvt. Ltd. At Room 203, 2-A/3, Kundan Mansion, Asaf Ali road, Delhi, Ex. OP2-W/1 – resolution,, Ex.OP2-W/2 - Certificate of Incorporation Pursuant to change of name,
7. In this case, the complainant did not reside or work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission, further the subject property i.e Sunworld Vendita is situated at the TS-7, Sector-22D, Yamuna Expressway, Uttar Pradesh, thus no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Also, neither opposite party No.1 nor opposite party No.2 has their office within the jurisdiction of this Commission, Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 18.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
