Delhi

New Delhi

OC/674/1998

Surinder Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. DLF Universal Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2017

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./674/1998                                                     Dated:

 

In the matter of:

Surinder Gulati,

House No. 760, Sector-15,

faridabad                                                                                                        ……..COMPLAINANT

 

 

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/s D.L.F. Universal Limited,

21-22, Narindra Place, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Shri K.P. Singh

Chairman, D.L.F. Universal Limited,

21-22, Narindra Place, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

 

       .... OPPOSITE PART

 

 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

ORDER

It is an old case. The complainant has stated that the complainant purchased a plot of 250.56 sq  mts. From the OP @ Rs. 240/- per sq. mts. and made following payments against receipts.

Rs. 10000/- on 20/10/81 ( Ex-C1/1)

Rs. 10,000/-  vide DD dated 25/10/81

Rs. 24054/- vide receipt dt. 12/09/84 including Rs. 10000/- paid on 20/10/81 (ex C-1/2)

Rs. 10000/-  vide DD dated 10/04/85

Rs. 10000/-  vide DD dated 25/07/85

(Total = Rs. 44054/-)

The amount of Rs. 20,000/- vide DD  dated 25/04/88, and Rs 50,000/- vide cheque were paid which were first accepted by the OP but returned with the plea that the plot has been cancelled on account of non-payment. The OP vide letter dated 06/05/88 informed the complainant about cancellation of agreement of sale and returned the amount of Rs. 44054/- through cheque dated 25/04/88.  The complaint through letter dated 08/12/88 requested to reconsider the case but no reply received from OP. Thereafter, complainant started receiving  the maintenance bill of services from OP and the complainant has been making payment to OP including the interest on demand of OP. The last payment of maintenance bill raised by OP was paid on 07/07/97.The complainant vide letter dated 09/10/97 requested to deliver the possession but OP refused on the plea of cancellation of allotment and that complainant accepted the refund in 1988. The complainant made following prayer:-

“It is , therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed to give possession of the plot allotted to the complainant or an alternative plot  on equally food location be given to the complainant without any further delay.

The respondents be directed to make good loss to the tune of Rs. Five Lakhs to the complainant towards escalation in the price of building material since 1990, mental harassment suffered by the complainant.

Any other order or orders this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in this regard may also be passed.”

            The OP filed written statement and took various objections. It is stated that the complainant is not a Consumer; there is no consumer dispute as the purported complaint is not complaint within the meaning of Sec, 2(1)(C) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986; the dispute is of civil nature & relates to contractual obligations and can be adjudicated by civil courts; the complaint does not disclose any deficiency in service by OP; the complaint is beyond limitation etc. On facts, it is stated by the OP that the complainant in 1981 registered himself with the OP for rendering service of informing the complainant about any schemes that would be undertaken by the respondent no.-1. The complainant paid Rs. 10000/- for said registration. The complainant  was offered 250.51 sq mtr. Plot @ Rs. 240/- per sq. mts. through letter dated 13/01/1983. The OP then raised a demand from the complainant on account of EDC charges @ Rs. 76.85/65.50 per sq.  mtr. as demanded by the Dir. Town & Country  planning  Government of Haryana. On failure on the part of the complainant reminder dated 20/10/83 & 04/11/83, followed by final notice dated 13/01/84 were issued by OP (Ex-3 Colly). Due to continue default the plot was cancelled. It is however, admitted by OP that the bill for maintenance charges were issued by oversight and amount of maintenance charges was also refund to the complainant vide cheque dated 01/11/97 again vide cheque dated 26/05/98. The complainant is aware about cancellation as also mentioned in the complaint that the draft and a cheque sent by complainant were returned. Further it is stated by the OP that the entire amount of Rs. 44054/- paid by the complainant was returned through cheque dated 25/04/1988 with  OPs letter dated 06/05/1988 and again on 02/07/98. Admittedly by the  cheque was not encashed by the complainant. It is further argued by the OP that after cancellation of the plot the entire amount was refunded and complainant is left with no right or claim against the said plot.               

The complainant has filed rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit. In rejoinder the complainant has affirmed the text of the complaint and denied the allegation made by the OP not conforming to the contents of the complaint and number of documents filed by the complainant to support his claim. The OP filed the affidavit in evidence.

            We have considered the material placed before us and the written arguments and oral arguments addressed by both the parties along with the relevant provisions of law.

The undisputed facts as per OP on its written submission filed in March 2005, are that the complainant made certain payments  for the plot measuring 250 sq. mts. @ Rs. 240 per sq.mts. The details of payment made by the complainant not have been disputed by the OP however,  the OP has alleged default on the part of the complainant  as the payment were not made timely which resulted in cancellation of the plot after issuance demands and notices. Further, the entire amount which was paid by the complainant was returned to the complainant in May 1988. Admittedly the said cheque  has not been encashed by the complainant and the entire amount is still lying  with the OP.

 The complainant has relied on the letter of the OP dated 17/07/1995 Ex C1/3 filed and the evidence which speaks that the zoning  plans for phase I, II, III in DLF, Qutub Enclave complex were approved in July 1989 and the same was strongly pressed that the OP had no authority to cancel the allotment sheerly on the pretext of delayed payment though the substantial amount had already been paid prior to the date of zoning approval.  Further the cheque of refund has not encashed so the entire amount has remained with OP and the OP used it. The cancellation by OP was arbitrary and without any  authority. The OP has rebutted this arguments with the plea that the entire amount was refunded to the complainant after cancellation of the plot. Though the OP had authority to forfeit the earnestmoney as per the terms  of agreement/contract. Still in good gesture, the entire amount was refunded and the time was essence of   the contract. It is further argued by the OP that project has already been completed and the question of delivery of  possession to the complainant does not arise also after cancellation and  refund of entire amount. The counsel for OP further stated that the OP is not in a position to offer any alternative plot to the complainant. Prayer to dismiss the complaint in view of the bonafide act of the OP by refunding the entire amount has been made. So, far as the  bill for the maintenance charges raised, it is stated that the same was an  error due to oversight and the payment of maintenance charges which was refunded does not confer any enforceable legal right in favour of the complainant in the circumstances of the case.

In view of the above facts referred here-in-above we are of the considered view that the complainant is a consumer and the cause of action is of continuing nature, however, the prayer of the complainant for handing over possession at this stage cannot be considered in view of the positions that the said plot has already been allotted to someone after cancellations. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the OP cancelled the allotment prior to approval of the zoning planning and a substantial amount had been paid by the complainant, we hold the OP to be deficient in service. The ends of justice will meet by directing the OP to refund the entire amount from the date of deposit by complainant along with simple interest @ 10% p.a. till the date of refund besides compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including litigation cost to the complainant. The OP is further directed to refund the amount of maintainance charges paid by the complianant with simple interest @ of 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of payment. The above amount is payable by the OP with in the period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. The complaint and the applications, if any are disposed of in above terms.

Copy of order be sent to both the parties by post free of cost as per statutory requirements.     

The order be also uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in .

Pronounced in open Forum on ………………….. .

 File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                   (S K SARVARIA)

                         PRESIDENT

 

                            (H M VYAS)                                                                       (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                   MEMBER                                                                                  MEMBER