Delhi

New Delhi

CC/257/2011

Bansi Lal Katariya & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Mar 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/257/11                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Bansi Lal Katariya, S/o Sh. A.D. Kataria

R/o 234, UE-II, Distt. Hisar, Haryana

       

2. Vijay Kumar Malik S/o Sh. P.N Malik

R/o MS-101602, Sector-56,

Kendriya Vihar, Distt. Gurgaon, Haryana

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. M/s. AMR Infrastructure Ltd.,

        806, Surya Kiran Building,

        Connaught Place, new Delhi-01

        Through Directors Sh. B.M Gupta &

        Mr. Atul Bansal

 

2. Sh. B.M Gupta and Sh. Atul Bansal

        Both Directors of M/s. AMR Infrastructure      Ltd., 2425/11, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh,

        New Delhi-110005

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The complainants jointly booked a commercial space on 1^st floor of KESSEL-i-Valley project of OP at Greater Noida, for a specific shop in the drawings of 1^st floor shown to the complainants. It is alleged that later on OP unilaterally changed and alternated the 1^st floor plan, which was not acceptable to complainants and they were left with no option but to demand back Rs.6,20,000/- paid by them after surrendering all documents of allotment of shop no.F-077. It is alleged that signatures were taken on various forms and no terms & condition of allotments were given to them. It is alleged that OP asked them to collect Rs.6,20,000/- but despite promises and numerous visits OP failed to pay the sum. Complainant issued a legal notice stating therein all facts in it and demanded the amount. The OP through its counsel sent a reply to complainant vide reply dated 20.04.09, in which it denied the allegations, and stated that only Rs.3,80,000/- have been paid by Complainants, and that they defaulted in making payment as per payment plan and therefore were not entitled to any amount. Therefore this complaint alleging deficiency in unilaterally changing the 1^st floor plan and not returning the money deposited after surrender of all documents of booking and allotment by Complainant on their request of OP for payment of Rs.6,20,000/-.

The OP in its reply, reiterating the averments in its reply to legal notice already mentioned above. It denied cash payment of Rs.2,40,000/- made by complainant in presence of OP’s director and with reply annexed an application for registration/booking giving particulars of them, and agreeing to abide by the terms & conditions, stated to be attached with application form. The Complainant’s have denied signing or having given or seen any terms & conditions, except a site plan of 1^st floor shows to them, for identification of shop, which is produced by Complainants with complaint. It has justified authorities to change plan, by produced no agreement or terms & conditions to support this.

We have summarily considered the case of both the parties. It is admitted by OP that shop no.F077, having super area of 782 sq. ft. was allotted, at rate of sale price of Rs.6,100/- per sq. ft. However, except this admission in reply, no allotment letter has been relied or issued to complainant is produced. No property buyer agreement between the parties showing terms of payment, events of defaults, consequences, forfeiture clause, exit clause and other terms like site plan of shop, location etc have been pleaded or produced. Everything hinges complainant for not paying the balance of payment from time to time, without formal agreement between the parties. It has simply denied all facts of complainant’s grievances of change of plan of 1^st floor, and meeting it and agreeing to refund the deposited Rs.6,20,000/- by calling them to surrender the documents etc. It has also denied cash payment of Rs.2,40,000/-.

After summarily considering all the evidence, documents produced by parties and having their submissions, we find that the talks remained only at the stage of payments towards booking amount, on oral undertaking of a particular shop at 1^st floor agreed and decided by Complainant, while booking it. There was no Consensus ad idem, between the parties on the shop allotted to the, which was on different location in changed plan. OP has not shown by producing design to say that agreed shop was sanctioned to the Complainant.  In the absence of such Consensus ad idem, OP cannot force its own terms & conditions of payment, without talks further progressing, only on the basis of application form and booking amount. We hold OP guilty of deficiency in insisting and forcing on complainants their terms & conditions and demanding further payments, without formal agreement on site of shop.

The OP has accepted payment of Rs.3,80,000/- by showing bank statement filed by it, but has not admitted Rs.2,40,000/- paid by cash on 15.05.07. Complainant has produced a credit note no.70 of Rs.2,40,000/- dated 15.05.07, annexed with complaint, issued by OP to show accepting of this amount in the a/c of complainant. Thus, OP has also wrongly denied the amount taken, which shows dishonest intention and unfair trade practice. The complainant has thus probed total payment of Rs.6,20,000/-

The OP was under obligation to return the sum to complainants, once complainant did not agree with changed plan. There is nothing to disbelieve the complainant’s version of events showing his surrender of documents on the pretext of giving him back his deposits. OP has simply indulged in falsehood to harass and humiliates the complainants who are consumers, are forced them to litigate. In the absence of any Builder Buyer agreement between the parties, there is no force in any of the preliminary obligations taken by OP2 reply.

Holding OP guilty of deficiency, falsehood and unfair trade practices, we direct OP to return Rs.6,20,000/- with 12% interest from date of deposit till payment and award  a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment, unfair trade practices and falsehood indulged by OP, and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied 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.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

Pronounced in open Court on 02.03.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                          MEMBER