Delhi

New Delhi

CC/700/2009

Suvidha Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

04 Sep 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/700/09                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Suvidha Chauhan,

C/o Sh.P.K Chauhan,

R/o E/190, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

Ms. Parsvnath Developers (P) Ltd.,

M.D/ CEO, Regd. & Corporate Office,

6^th Floor, Arunachal,

19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

We have summarily considered the complaint of alleged deficiency by OP, in the light of reply of OP and documents filed a received by it. The short case of complainant is that she deposited Rs.2,75,000/- against future plots/flats to be contributed or developed by OP. She made this payment in 2005. It is alleged by her that thereafter she did not hear anything from OP, and in 2007, she wrote to OP, to which OP replied in 2009, that offer had been cancelled and she may deposit back the original receipt etc, and collect balance payment. The complainant has filed this complaint for selling refund with interest to compensate etc.

The OP in its reply has stated that a former allotment was made of a particular flat no. time to time reminders were sent to them to pay the balance and a flat buyer agreement was also sent for her signing, but she never responded, and therefore the offer was cancelled. The OP has placed on record various documents sent by courier to her address, but she denied the same.

We have considered the rival submissions. The advance registration for is on record. It mentions only date and name of complainant, with no particulars of any place, area, scheme or basic rate or area, for which booking is done. It is noted by us that the reminders etc have been issued at complainant’s address. Though she denied the receipt of all correspondence by OP, she admits receiving communication no.679, cancelling the allotment. If she received the last cancellation letters there is no reason to believe that she did not receive earlier letters.

Nevertheless, OP wants to return the amount with 15% deduction of BSP. In our considered view, since advance registration form does not mention any BSP or rate, the OP should return the deposited amount with deduction of only 10% of the amount deposited. Complainant should approach OP for refund as observed above.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 04.09.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

(Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER