Delhi

New Delhi

CC/237/2012

Shobha Tejwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Rangoli Buildtech Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Apr 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/237/12                       Dated:

In the matter of:

MS. SHOBHA TEJWANI

W/O SH. RAK KUMAR TEJWANI

R/O. 1-126, PHASE-1, ASHOK

DELHI-110015

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. RANGOLI BUILDTECH (P) LTD.,

1105, AKASHDEEP BUILDING,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI.

 

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

 

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

The short facts of complaint are that complainant purchased a plot from one Mr. Anil Ram Bhatia who had booked a plot in the Project TDI Greens in 2009.  The complainant paid 2 demand drafts for Rs.7,42,650/- and Rs.7,00,000/- to OP and receipt by OP was issued 15.12.2009.  Complainant further alleges that OP has neither deposited the said demand drafts nor was accepting fresh demand drafts.  The complainant has prayed for possession as well as directions to OP to accept the demand drafts.

OP in its reply has stated that it has no privity  of contract with complainant as they have allotted the plot to Mr. Anil Rai Bhatia OP has further contended that they are not aware of any deal between complainant and Mr. Anil Rai Bhatia.  Further they have stated that  Mr. Bhatia was a defaulter and as such allotment was cancelled as per terms and condition of agreement.

The first question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had any privity of contract with OP.  Perusal of allotment letter as well a receipt by OP (annexed with complaint) mentions the name of Mr. Anil Bhatia.  There is no an iota of evidence pertaining to the alleged deal between complainant i.e. Shobha Tejwani and Mr. Anil Bhatia.  The namby namby please set up by complainant leads the Forum nowhere.  The allegation made by complainant is vague and evasive and no documentary proof is placed along with complainant to establish that complainant had any contract with OP.

Thus, in our considered view, OP is not guilty of deficiency in service and complainant is therefore dismissed.

The order shall be complied with 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.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 09.04.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)               (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                                 MEMBER