Delhi

New Delhi

CC/286/2012

Marketing &Transit (India) Pvt.Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 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/286/12                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Marketing & Transit (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

M-54, Palika Bhawan,

R.K Puram, New Delhi

Through its Director

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

EMAAR MGF Land Ltd.,

ECE House,

28, K.G Marg, New Delhi

Also at:

SCO 120-122,

1^st Floor, Sector-17/C,

Chandirgarh-160017

                         ………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President:  C.K Chaturvedi

The complainant company booked a residential flat with OP in its project called “The View “ Mohali Hills Sector 105, SAS Nagar, District Mohali , State of Punjab, by depositing Rs.7 lakhs on 12.8.06. It was assured that the flat would be delivered in 3 years time. The complainants waited for 4 years and the construction never commenced. The complainant wrote to OP of this fact and sought refund. The OP never responded and it was followed by reminders till Feb.2011. At this stage OP informed the Complainant that for various reasons it was not possible to commence construction and there was no fixed time line for construction. It informed that the Tower C in which the allotment was made was not possible to be constructed It also informed that in case they shifted to K Tower, they would lose some money and referred to some clauses in the flat buyer agreement which was never received by complainant nor executed. In these circumstances, the complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice, deficiency in not meeting the promise and failure to cancel and refund the sum deposited.

The OP has contested the complaint and filed a reply taking number of preliminary objections to justify the denial of refund. It has raised question of territorial jurisdiction and questioned that complainant was not consumer, without explaining the contention.

On merits OP stated that complainant was asked to pay 20% within 2 months of the booking followed by reminders which complainant ignored. He was also sent flat buyer agreement, which was not returned. The OP decided to wait and issued reminders for outstanding, but was not responded to. It also admitted that the construction also could not commence in C tower, where allotment was made due to unforeseen reasons. It also admitted that in 2010, seeing no construction complainant wrote to OP to cancel and pay refund. But OP informed that it was offering the equivalent area flat where construction was in advance stage, and cancellation would lead to loss to complainant in terms of agreement but complainant did not agree and filed this complaint for refund. These facts are proved by Exh.R/1 to Exh.R8 placed on record in evidence with documents. The documents show that all the letters have been sent and reminders at the address on which the complainant received other admitted letters. The fact remains that after deposit of initial Rs.7 lacs, the complainant showed no response in paying balance, at the same time, the fact also remains that the construction could not commence for some reason in tower C and complainant did not want the flat in another tower. By not returning the signed agreement, it avoided the terms and conditions.

We have heard both the parties in the light of facts mentioned above. It is admitted fact that OP had no firm time line and possibility of construction of C tower, in which flat was allotted and the flat in other tower cannot be imposed on him in case he was not interested, and he was thus justified in seeking refund. And OP should have returned the same even if he delayed payments, as admittedly the construction never commenced.

The OP has failed to bring any evidence to justify the non refund of the deposited booking amount, when it has not been able to take up construction till now even after 9 years of deposit. It is admitted case that OP could not have delivered the flat in particular tower where it was allotted and complainant cannot wait endlessly.

In the light of above discussion, we hold OP indulging in unfair trade practice and committing deficiency to the complainant company. We direct OP to return the deposited sum of Rs7 lakhs with interest of 12% from date of deposit till payment. We also award compensation of Rs.50.000/- for deficiency 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 25.07.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER