Delhi

New Delhi

CC/896/2012

Gitanjali Kapoor & Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. AMR Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/896/12                Dated:

In the matter of:

GITANJLI KAPOOR,

E-11, JANGPURA EXTENSION,

NEW DELHI-110014.

                                           …….Complainant

RISHI KAPOOR,

E-11, JANGPURA EXTENSION,

NEW DELHI-110014.

                       

VERSUS

 

AMR INFRASTRUCTURE  LTD.

CORPORATE OFFICE AT:

806, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING

K G MARG, CONNOUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-01

 

RAM CHANDER SONI (DIRECTOR)

REGISTERED OFFICE AT

2425/11, GURUDWARA ROAD,

KAROL BAGH

NEW DELHI-05

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

ORDER

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

        The complainant booked office space with OP in its project “Kessal-e-Valley” and paid Rs.7 lakhs in the year 2006. However, as there was delay in the Original Project, Complainant booked an apartment with OP and the amount was to be adjusted in the same.  A Memo of Understanding is annexed in this regard.  The complainant also contends that he paid Rs.2,41,000/- by cash. 

OP has stated in its affidavit that a commercial unit was booked by complainant for profit and not for his livelihood.  OP has admitted deposit of Rs.7.00 lakhs in Para 9 of affidavit.  OP has denied cash receipt and any transfer of IT Unit into residential unit in “I Home Project”.  In Para 22 OP has stated that allotment was made within time.  The possession may be delayed due to forced majeure situations beyond the control of the company.  OP has offered possession by letter dated 8.12.12, though the said letter has not been annexed.

        We have heard the pleadings, arguments by both the parties and examine the documents placed on record.  The booking of office space by complainant and deposit of Rs.7 lakhs is an admitted position by both sides.  OP has admitted that the possession was delayed due to circumstances beyond its control but neither explained nor placed any document/evidence on record regarding circumstances for the alleged delay in construction and possession.  OP has further alleged that this office space was booked for profit but not for livelihood.  It is impossible to earn a livelihood without making profit from the business concerned.  Even the purported letter of possession send by OP to the complainant has not been annexed with the pleadings.  It appears that OP has used the money deposited by the consumer for its own benefits without fulfilling its own part viz. offer of possession of flat in writing.

  We therefore, hold OP guilty of deficiency in unlawfully and unethically keeping the money of complainant and direct OP to refund Rs.7 lakhs with 12% interest from date of pleadings till payment.  We also award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment mental agony and financial difficulties caused to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges. 

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 04.11.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER