Delhi

New Delhi

CC/331/2013

Aman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Arun Dev Builders Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./331/2013                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. Aman

S/o Sh. Puran Ram

R/o H.No. 117, Block-18,

Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091

……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1.M/S Arun Dev Bilders LTD.

Through its Managing Director,

Registered Office

612, Devil Village, Near Holy Chowk,

New Delhi-110062.

 

2.Mr. Manoj Bharadwaj

Director

M/S Arun Dev Builders Ltd.

Registered Office

612, Devli Village, Near Holy Chowk,

New Delhi-110062.

 

3.Mr.Pawan Kumar Sharma

Director,

M/S Arun Devli,Village,Near Holy Chowk,

New Delhi-110062.

 

4.Mr.Ramesh Chander Sharma

Director,

M/S Arun Dev Builders Ltd.

Registered Office

612, Devli Village,Near Holy Chowk,

New Delhi-110062.

               .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

MEMBER: NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

 Complainant booked one flat of measuring 610 sq.ft. in the project of OPS at “Dev City” Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. It is alleged by the complainant that the total sale consideration of the flat was 7,26,510/- out of which complainant paid Rs.60,000/- to the OP as a booking amount vide cheque dt.1/10/07 which was duly acknowledged by the OP. A registration No. 61004 had been allotted to the complainant by the Op in lieu of the booking amount.

          It is stated by the complainant that he was required to pay Rs.5000/- to the OPs from November 2007 to October 2010 i.e. 33 installements amounting to Rs.1,65,000/-. It is alleged by the complainant that he paid Rs.60,000/- to the OP vide cheque dt.28/8/09 on account of construction cost which was also duly acknowledged by the OP. It is stated by the complainant the on 5/9/09 OP allotted him a flat No.47/25 at 3^rd floor in Dev. City.

          It is further alleged by the complainant that out of total cost of Rs.7,26,510 he paid 2,85,000/- to the OP but as per the provisional registeration/agreement OP failed to hand over the possession in 36 month. It is also alleged by the complainant that he visited several times  to the office of the OP but nothing has been done by the OP to resolve the issue. It is further alleged by the complainant that after a long time OP issued letter dt.27/8/2011 to the complainant and gave the assurance that the possession will be handed over soon. But, despite letter dt.27/8/2011 OP failed to hand over the possession of the flat and as such complainant requested the OP to refund the money as per the clause no.5 of the provisional registration agreement, but OP failed to do so. Complainant also served legal notice to the OP for refund of money, but OP neither replied to the legal notice nor refunded the money to him. Hence this complaint.

          Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs through Regd. AD post for 26/7/13. On 26/7/13 matter was adjourned for to 22/10/13. On 22/10/13, Ld. Counsel for OP appeared and collected the copy of complaint and filed its W.S on 18/12/13. Since on 27/3/14 none appeared on behalf of the OPs as such OPs defence was closed on 18/3/15. The complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit.

          We have heard ex-parte arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

          Complainant has placed on record the copy of provisional applicantions, copies of the receipt issued by the OP against the payment received, copy of letter dt.5/9/09, and 27/8/11, copy of the legal notice dt.19/12/12 alongwith its postal receipt is support of his case.

In number of cases courts have held that where serious allegations are made against a notices and the allegations are not refuted and the notice is simply ignored a presumptions may be drawn that the allegation made in the notice are true.  (See Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Poles Travel Vs. Sumit Kalra and Another 98(2002) DLT 573 (DB).

The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in favour of the complainant

  Even otherwise there is no reason to disbelieve the facts stated in affidavit filed on record by the complainant.

From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. Bare perusal of the clauses 4 and 5 of application make it very clear that the OP ought to have allot the unit/flat within a period of 36 months and if it fails to do so, complainant has right to get refund his money with simple interest @ 9% p.a.

          In view of the above discussion, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in services and direct it as under:

1. Refund to the complainant, sum of Rs.2,85,000/- alongwith 9% simple interest from the date of filing of complaint till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include cost of litigation.

The order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs. 20,000/-. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Pronounced in open Forum on 22.8.2016.

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(H M VYAS)                                     (NIPUR CHANDANA)

                                                              MEMBER                                                           MEMBER