Delhi

New Delhi

CC/108/2018

Bhup Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Parsvanth Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VI,

DISTT.NEW DELHI, M-BLOCK, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

CC/108/2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

BHUP SINGH

S/o Sh. BHIM SINGH

R/o V&PO BOHOR,

DISTT. ROHTAK, HARYANA                                                         COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

PARSAVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED

REGD. OFFICE:-

PARSAVNATH METRO TOWER,

NEAR SHAHDRA METRO STATION,

SHAHDRA DELHI 110032

 

ALSO AT

CORPORATE/BRANCH OFFICE:-

6^TH FLOOR, ARUNACHAL BUILDING,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD,

NEW DELHI 110001                                                                            OPPOSITY PARTY                                                  

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

          Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

          Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

                                                                             Dated of Institution :21.03.2018

                                                                             Date of Order         :08.04.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

Hearing through Video Conferencing.

1. The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act.) against the opposite party (in short OP) alleging deficiency in services. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of the representation of opposite party, complainant booked a residential apartment in the project of OP i.e Parsavnath City in Rohtak, Haryana. OP gave false and baseless assurances regarding the said project. That Complainant believing the false representative of opposite party, applied for a plot in the aforesaid project.
2. That Complainant had booked a plot bearing No D-183, Block No D, admeasuring 209.03 sq meters (250 sq yds) residential plot in colony named Parsavnath City in Village Bohar, District Rohtak , Haryana for Rs 13,12,500/-(Rupees thirteen Lakh twelve thousand five hundred only) with the Opposite Party.
3. A Plot Buyer Agreement date 2nd April 2012 was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for the aforesaid plot for total sale consideration of Rs 13,12,500/-(Rupees thirteen Lakh twelve thousand five hundred only).
4. It further alleged that the opposite party failed to deliver the possession of said plot as prescribed under the Plot Buyer Agreement.
5. It is stated that the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 26.11.2017 issued to Opposite Party to deliver the possession of the said plot but despite the service of said legal notice, Opposite Party with malafide intensions did not sent any reply.
6. It is also alleged that the Complainant has already paid Rs 11,81,725/-(Rupees Eleven Lakh eighty one thousand seven hundred twenty five only) being 90% of the basic sale price of the said plot at the time of execution of Plot Buyer Agreement and on the other hand the opposite party did not comply the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement which is clearly showing the malicious intention of the opposite party to not to complete the internal work and further hand over the possession of said plot. That the Complainant was and is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration of the said Plot
7. OP contested the case, reply was filed taking preliminary objection that complaint is vexatious. It was denied that complaint is a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It was alleged that Complaint has no cause of action. It was further stated that there is no deficiency of service on part of OP. It was also stated that dispute between the parties involves question of facts and law as such the same cannot be adjudicated by this Forum. It was also stated that complaint is barred by limitation. It was further stated that plot bearing D-183 relating to the plot in question was acquired by HSIIDC due to which possession could not be handed over to the Complainant. It was also stated that revised layout pending with the authority.
8. Complainant did not lead its evidence nor filed rejoinder despite several opportunities being granted as such the opportunity to file rejoinder and evidence by Complainant was closed vide order dated 01.02.2022.
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP and perused the record. It is settled principle of law that ordinarily the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who asserts the same and not on the party who denies it. Thus as Complainant has failed to lead evidence to proof his case. The Complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service. Thus OP cannot be held deficient in service.
10. The Complainant stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. A copy of this order be provided to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order.

 

 

 

(POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

        (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                                           (ADARSH NAIN)           ​

            MEMBER                                                                                             MEMBER