Delhi

New Delhi

CC/673/2014

Kamlesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Durga Builders Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 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/673/14                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Smt. Kamlesh Sharma,

W/o Sh. J.P Sharma,

R/o H.no.2714, Gali no.29,

Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi-19

Through A.R, Sh. K.K Gaur,

R/o 511, Vigyan Sadan, Sector-10,

R.K Puram, Delhi-110022

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

Durga Builders (P) Ltd.,

Through M.D,

Regd. Office:

Flat no.9, Scindia House, (2^nd Floor),

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, booked in 1987 a residential plot of 100 sq. yds priced at Rs.13,000/- in Okhla Enclave Colony, advertised by OP Company. The amount was payable in installments, and complainant till 23.05.91 paid total consideration of Rs.13,000/- duly acknowledged by OP, vide Annexure A to complainant. Thereafter OP also collected development charges of Rs.32,000/- but OP failed to allot any plot, and instead offered on 24.07.97, alternative plot in new colony called Edenburg City which offer was accepted by complainant vide Annexure C & D. OP again failed to allot flat, but OP again categorically  stated that it was unable to allot a plot and handed over an  application for refund vide Annexure E.  The Complainant frustrated with OP filed this complaint in 2003, complaining of deficiency and seeking direction to OP to allot plot as promised earlier heaving collected price and development charges.

The OP Durga Builders in its reply has raised question of price of plot and EDC charges as fixed by Haryana Town and Country Planning Board in 1991 and thereafter. It is stated that complainant cannot question the pricing of plot. On merits it is stated that though complainant paid the amount as mentioned in the complaint, but it did not change the location, as Okhla Enclave and Edenburg City were same. It has not answered the averments that OP gave a refund request, which was not honored by OP so far. An affidavit is also filed to this effect. It is also contended in reply that price and charges as fixed by Town & Country Planning at Rs.3,600/- sq.yd and if this price is paid, it is ready to give plot but Complainant is a defaulter and also that general category charge is applicable to complainant, as other two category of EWS and NPNL are not applicable to complainant.

We have considered the material on record, evidence and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in some writ petition filed by persons who booked plot in Okhla Enclave Colony. The complainant has also brought on record the finding of a committee headed by Sh. H.P Sharma of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, to determine how much land was owned by Durga Builders in Okhla Enlcave and other places for which licenses were issued by Haryana Town & Country Planning in 1991. We have gone through the finding of the report submitted by Sh. H.P Sharma, a Commissioner appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

After considering the entire matter summarily, we find that OP in simply obfuscating the real issue in the case, by relying on largely irrelevant material to the controversy. The admitted position is that complainant booked the plot in 1987, in a colony called Okhla Enclave Colony and payment was made in EMI, and thereafter some EDC charges were collected by OP, but OP failed to give plot to complainant, and wanted to refund the money. In our considered view, when land was charged by booking in 987, the Town and country planning rates fixed in 1991 did not exist, nor EDC charges were fixed, and even license was not granted in 1987. It is thus clear that OP floated the booking in colony on some land for which there was no license, and the land did not belong to it or it had some own private land, which he was free to sell and develop. The Hon’ble Supreme Court committee of Sh. H.P Sharma, has given report about this Oklha Enclave, and had give report that OP did not own all the land for which license was applied. It therefore follows that OP marketed land without license and land did not belong to it. Thus OP obviously indulged in cheating innocent consumer by charging for land which it did not own, and therefore could not give possession and cleverly offered another colony to pacify consumers and thereafter offered refund.

In the light of above discussion, we hold OP guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practice, by cheating the complainant, by neither offering plot nor refunding the money. It now wants to market the licensed land at prices at prevailing rates, in place of old rates fixed and charged by him.

In the circumstances, we direct OP to:

1. Either gives the available licensed land in Okhla Enclave Colony of 100 sqm to complainant without charging to present day rate.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.20 lakhs inclusive of litigation charges to complainant, to compensate for this booking of plot in booked in 1987, i.e. 28 years back as complainant cannot buy any plot of same size even in Rs.20 lakhs.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP 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 ……………….

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER