Delhi

New Delhi

CC/201/2012

C.D. Juneja & Anr - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Inder Taneja & Anr - Opp.Party(s)

23 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.CC/201/12                             Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. C.D Juneja s/o late Sh. B.D Juneja,

Mrs. Raj Juneja w/o Sh. C.D Juneja,

Both R/o house no.H-3/2, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017                             

 

……..COMPLAINANT

                                                              

VERSUS

 

1. Mr. Inder Taneja,

Agent of M/s. Parker Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

R/o G-14/1 3^rd Floor, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-17

 

2. M/s.Parkar Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its M.D,

 

3. Mr. Manish Garg,

M.D, M/s. Parkar Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

 

4. Mr. Naveen Sharma,

Manager of M/s. Parkar Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

All at regd. Office at:410, D-Mall,

Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura,

New Delhi-34

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainants, who are Sr. Citizens booked with OP2, a commercial space of 650 sq.ft in a project called ‘Parker Mall’ at NH-1, Kundli, Haryana, on the pursuance of their neighbor OP1. It is alleged that they had no other source of earning and they intended to open a shop to earn livelihood for themselves. The Complainant paid the advance registration payment vide cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- on 27.12.06 and Rs.5,32,000/- on 07.01.07. It was assured at the time of registration that possession of the unit shall be made within 18 months. OP after a year informed that approval of the project was awaited and construction would start in Dec.2008. On 03.07.07, complainant made further payment of Rs.2,50,000/- as per schedule on request of OP1 & 4. Complainants visited the site 3 times and found that project was not progressing and it would not be completed in many years.

In view of this in July 2008, they approached OP2 & OP4 to refund the deposit and got assurance for this, and surrendered the original acknowledgement on 12.08.08. In April 2009, OP4, on repeated request gave a cheque of Rs.2,25,000/- and assured refund of remaining Rs.6,82,000/- The OP instead of making refund of balance, suddenly sent a demand of Rs.22,75,000/-to be paid within 15 days. He informed that he had already surrendered the booking by depositing originals, and till filing of the complaint in 2012 did not get the remaining money back despite legal notice, which was even not replied. In view of this, complaint is filed, seeking compensation.

The OP in its reply has admitted fact of deposit, but has taken a plea that the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- returned to him, after getting the original receipts deposited back from him, was in fact a loan by it to complainant, who needed  money for his family needs. It has further stated that complainant failed to deposit various amounts demanded. In its evidence, OP has referred to correspondence between the parties. It has not explained how, after surrender of receipts for cancellation, demand letters were issued from time to time to complainant, after taking back receipts from him, for cancellation of registration booking.

We have considered the case of both the parties. The OP1 in its written arguments has clearly admitted in Para9, that OP2 have issued cheque of Rs.2,25,000/-, and Para10 of written arguments states that refund of this amount was made on 13.04.09, which was the last transaction.

On this basis, it is argued that complaint in 2012 is time barred. It is not explained by OP why OP did not return the balance, till now, despite collecting from him original receipts/papers of booking. It is very clear to us that OP is simply taking a false plea to cover its default and deficiency, and without any construction, at site wanted complainant to deposit the huge money, by indulging in unfair trade practice. Its evidence has no basis, nor the complaint can be said to be time barred or non-maintainable. It cannot be believed that OP would ever give money to help the complainant for family needs.

In the light of above discussion, we hold OP guilty of deficiency and direct it to return the balance amount of Rs.6,82,000/- with interest of 9% from the 13.04.09 till payment. We also award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

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 23.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER