Delhi

New Delhi

TC/1057/2007

Sandeep Dhingra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

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

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.TC/1057/07                      Dated:

In the matter of:    

Sh. Sandeep Dhingra,

S/o Sh. H.L Dhingra,

R/o D47, Ajay Enclave, New Delhi-110018

               ……..COMPLAINANT

         

VERSUS

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

        28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

 

2.     Mr. Raman Puri,

        Partner, Sunrise Properties,

        102, Antriksha Bhawan,

        K.G Marg, C.P, Delhi-110001

 

3.     Mr. Manoj Mittal,

        C/o Sunrise Properties,

        102, Antriksha Bhawan,

        K.G Marg, C.P, Delhi-110001

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

Mr. Sandeep Dhingra, the son of the complainant power of attorney who filed this complaint, registered with OP for 2 plots bearing no.166 and 167 in the Ardee City promoted by OP through alleged agents OP N.2and 3. It is alleged that after negotiations the price was settled at Rs.15 lakhs for each plot. The complainant accordingly made payment of registration amount of Rs.2,25,000/- vide cheque no.752069 and 752070 dated 14.05.96. Thereafter OP demanded 10% more towards the cost of plots, which also he deposited at the same time asking for the execution of plot buyer’s agreement. This agreement came to be signed on 26.3.99. It is alleged that the cheques of 10% money deposited earlier to execution agreement were not presented for payment for unknown reasons. The OP1 told complainant not to make any more payment as the layout plan of the plots was being changed. The complainant waited like this till 2007 and finding that OP’s mala fide intention to cheat and not to allot the plot issued a legal notice and thereafter filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to OP to give possession.

The OP1 in its reply has stated that complainant till the execution of agreement paid only Rs.2,25,000/- for plot no. D-166 and D-167 and thereafter it had to make payments as per the agreement of 2009 under which OP was not obliged to issue demand letters and payment was time bound. It is stated that suddenly after  6 years of execution of agreement the complainant he appeared with cheques of Rs.5,25,000/- each, by which time the allotment had been cancelled as per the terms and conditions of agreement. It is also stated that before signing the agreement he had sent cheques of Rs.1,50,000/each which were not presented as he had not turned up for execution of agreement. It is stated that at the time of agreement the validity of cheques had expired and he assured the  OP that he will give fresh cheques which he failed to deposit till 2005 when he appeared with cheques of Rs,5,50,000/- It is alleged that plot no. were not changed.

We have considered the rival case and perused the material on record, evidence and submissions made. The complainant has alleged that OP asked him to wait to make payment as plans were likely to be changed, which  is not accepted by OP. Assuming  that it was so, it cannot be accepted that complainant would keep silent for as long as 6 years and would never even write a letter to OP  to clarify the issue. OP has denied his meeting various officers named in the complaint. had OP written some letters in this regard and no reply had been received the matter would have required some view, but in the absence of all this, it only proves the contention of OP that the complainant on seeing the rise in cost of land sought to deposit the balance after 6 years when the allotment stood cancelled in terms of the agreement for non deposit of timely installments. The cause of action in such a case could arise only when the fresh cheques if given were not accepted, or OP avoided payment. In our view, the complaint woke up late and the complaint is also time barred in 2007.

In the light of above discussion, we do not find any deficiency on the part of OP1, 2 OR 3. The complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

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

        Pronounced in open Court on 11.02.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARDOIA)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER