Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1045/2009

Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Sanjay Nagpal Estate & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Feb 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/1045/09                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Santosh Kumar,

R/o 1/4433 Ambedkar Gate,

Ram Nagar Ext. Mandoli Road,

Shahdara Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Sanjay Nagpal Estate,

GF, 31A, Indraprakash Building,

2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Arun Dev Builders,

F-89/11, Okhla Phase-1,

New Delhi-110020

                                        ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturdevi

 

The Complainant in 2006, booked a plot measuring 150 sq. yds at Haridwar Project of OP builder. He deposited Rs.75,000/- by cheque on 01.10.03. The plot was to be allotted in 12 months time. The OP issued a allotment letter in month of April 2007, allotting him plot no.C-67. In the meanwhile, complainant paid more installment and in total paid Rs.2,55,000/- when in 2000 he decided to seek refund. He requested the cancellation through booking agent Adinath Associates, who recommended the cancellation to OP, asking to pay the refund by cheque. It is seen from the record that in March 2009, he was refunded Rs.2,55,000/- and surrendered the original receipts etc. He submitted an affidavit in support of this, which is on record. He filed this complaint on 17/07/09 alleging that OP be directed to return Rs.2,55,000/- with interest. Inadvertently OP2 was exparte, but later on it filed a reply, which shows that it is not aware of the payments already made by OP2, and stated that it is ready to deliver plot, if balance payment is made. Complainant filed a rejoinder but never disclosed the payment already received. The OP2 has also filed an application questioning territorial jurisdiction.

These facts would clearly show that there is some manipulation in the case by advocates and complainant, as OP has not pleaded refund of money in 2009, already made and case is continuing on different lines.  

In the circumstances, we find no merit in the case and to the complaint is dismissed as infructous and frivolous, with a cost of Rs.10,000/- in favor of OP2.

 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.

File be consigned to record room.

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

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.02.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER