Kamlesh Jain filed a consumer case on 05 Mar 2015 against M/S. S.M.V. Agencies Pvt.Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/855/2010 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Mar 2015.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR,
VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.C.C./855/10 Dated:
In the matter of:
Kamlesh Jain,
W/o. Sh. V.K. Jain,
R/o. 483, Nav Jyoti,
Srinagar Colony,
Gita Marg, Railway Road,
Hapur, U.P.-245101.
(Through Attorney Sh. V.K. Jain)
…....COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
9-B, Hansalya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road,
Conn. Place,
New Delhi-110001.
M/s. S.M.V. Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,
9-B, Hansalya Building,
15, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
....... OPPOSITE PARTIES
ORDER
President: C.K. Chaturvedi
We have summarily considered the complaint of alleged deficiency on the part of OP in not offering possession of plot to complainant, who had paid all the charges and demands raised from him, after he was registered with OP, on transfer of the registration in his name by OP from erstwhile registration. It is alleged by complainant that he paid Rs.5,04,000/- + Rs.3,80,000/- subsequently towards the purchase amount in the Bamheta City the proposed township, on NH-24, Ghaziabad. This was in 2007; he also paid EDC charges demanded. He followed this case all though till 2010, but he alleged got a provision plot No.B-124, proposed to be allotted, but nothing to concrete came to him. Later on complainant came to know that OPs have simply launched the scheme with no requisite permission and basic infrastructure support, and had only collected money from people only to cheat them. He sought either the plot or refund with 18% interest.
OP in reply has stated that OP was clearly executing sale deed in certain blocks and placed a copy of sale deed, and alleged that all the payment received are part payment as not the full payment, and that lay out has been approved by authority and OP has initiated the process of handing over and the OP constantly informed the complainant of the status of project and stated other theoretic submissions etc., which do not address the concern of complainant.
We have considered the rival submissions made and evidence placed on record. We find that OP has not placed a single letter addressed to complainant to assure him after accepting payments in 2007, and the only letter issued in 2009 is for regretting the delay in completion of project for administrative delays in clearances, thereby admitting that clearance was still awaited, while money received with OP since 2006. There is no reply to letter of complainant till legal notice.
The empty talks of OPs readiness to handover plots to others without an iota of evidence of such offers to complaint is meaningless formality. OP cannot continue thus state of affairs any more as we are in 2014 now. OP has not been able to rebut the evidence of harassment to consumer and other allegations. In the circumstances, we hold OPs guilty of deficiency and direct OP to offer fresh offer of possession with time from for registration of plot in the name of complainant, and show balance due against him within 30 days of this order, failing which OP is directed to return the money deposited with OPs with positive interest of 18% p.a. from the date of last payment till realization within next 15 days. We also award compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs on OP 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 against OP 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 05.03.2015.
(C.K.CHATURVEDI)
President
(S.R.CHAUDHARY) (RITU GARODIA)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.