Delhi

New Delhi

CC/59/2012

Harish Madan & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

01 Aug 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/59/12                              Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mr. Harish Madan, S/o S.C Madan,

(Since deceased)

Through LRs

1. Mr. Vaibhav Madan (Son)
2. Mr. Vineet Madan (Son)

2. Mrs. Prem Madan  W/o Harish Madan

All R/o-150/8 Maria, Model Town,

Gurgaon, Haryana   

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. M/s. ARDEE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

        Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan,

        29, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

 

2. Managing Director of M/s. ARDEE Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., & Director/Directors concerned who are incharge of the business activities of the Company.

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The Complainants booked a commercial space of 623 square feet bearing no.C-11 Ground Floor in OP’s “PLAZA GARDENIA” in Ardee City, Gurgaon, 12 years back in 2003. The total cost was settled at Rs.17,94,240/- with date of completion in 2006, subject to force majure clauses for delay beyond the control of OP for natural causes as provided in the agreement.

 The complainant had booked the same for settling their unemployed son who was perusing business studies. The complainant regularly and strictly paid all demands as per the agreement till 5.8.05. It is alleged that there after the OP neglected the construction activities which came to very slow pace and worried complainant called upon the OPs through a legal notice of 16.11.06 to expedite and complete the construction. The OP only assured without in reality meaning it and in 2006 offered vide Annexure 5 to lease the shop in favour of some reputed party at the rate of Rs.47.50/per square feet with a promise of escalation of interest at 12 percent after every three years. The complainant declined as they wanted their younger son completing studies to run the shop for livelihood. The OP continued with the assurance and till now the construction in 2015 is standstill. The complainant allege deficiency in service in not completing the project till 2015, to give possession and allege unfair trade practice of offering to lease it, without any one ready for the same. They sought compensation at least at the rate of Rs.50/-per square feet till completion as their son was unemployed and unable to get the space even at double the rate.

The OP in its reply has raised question of territorial jurisdiction without disputing that the OP’s registered office is at New Delhi, which provides jurisdiction to this Forum under Sec.11 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986. The judgments in support do not apply in the case. It has also taken a plea that complainant are not consumer, because they booked retail shop which is for a commercial purpose. The OP has not disputed that the complainant ‘s son was unemployed after business studies and complainants even turned down the proposal of leasing out the same to some outsiders as proposed or offered by OP.

On merits, the OP admitted that the project could not be completed till 2010 as authorities did not give occupancy certificate and in the meanwhile the construction declined as many persons who booked the space stopped paying installments. It is pleaded that even complainants failed to deposit the balance 7 lakhs and the project needs at least Rs.80 crores, to be spent on repair of the incomplete and deteriorating condition of building lying without occupation since 2010. The OP have not placed any documents to show that it pointed out defaults on the part of complainant in the demands raised by OP as per payment plan nor it placed any reminders etc. This all supports the complaint of deficiency that OP had almost abandoned the construction with no one ready to occupy it as it is not in a position to be offered for retail.

We have carefully considered the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. The OP has no substantial case to explain the failing promise made in 2003 for completion till 2006 and till now, except that it is blaming the consumers who are still waiting and ready to make payments on completion as per plans. We fail to understand if the retail space was ready for lease to others, why the same could not be given to the complainant for retail, why OP failed to attract other retailers on lease to make the plaza functional. This is obviously for the reasons that the plaza is not ready to be functional despite lapse of 12 years. The complainant cannot wait endlessly and are justified in seeking compensation for delay at a rate which at least partly meets their losses on daily basis for failure of OP to provide means and opportunity for earning a livelihood. We hold OP liable for deficiency and unfair trade practice in collecting money in the name of Plaza with no intention or means to complete it in reasonable time.

In the circumstances, we direct that OP shall pay by way of this  order a compensation limited to Rs.19 lakhs at the Rate of Rs.50/- per square feet for the recurring loss to complainant from the month of January 2010, till the completion of project, and the part of compensation amount be adjusted against the final demands payable on completion. Till possession is delivered, the Complainant will have continuing cause of action to approach the Forum. We also award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and 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 01.08.2015.

 

  (C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER