Delhi

New Delhi

CC/894/2010

R.P . Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SMV Agencies Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 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/894/10                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. R.P Kaushik,

R/o 42, Bank Vihar, Near Saraswati Vihar,

Pitampura, Delhi-34

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

M/s. SMV Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its M.D/Chairman,

8-C, Hansalaya Building,

15, Barakhamba Road, Delhi-01

Also at:

S-25, 1st Floor, Main Market,

Green Park, New Delhi-110016

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The case of the complainant is straight and simple. He booked a residential plot with OP vide application dated 18.03.06 (Annexure 2 Colly) and paid Rs.4,25,000/- by a cheque of same date. On 14.11.06, OP allotted a plot bearing no, Block D-266, Type D with certain terms & conditions of allotment. The booking was for 200 sq. yds of plot in ‘Sunrise Green’ at Bahmetha, N.H-24, Ghaziabad. Later on complainant came to know that OP had reduced prices from Rs.10,500/- sq. yd to Rs.9,000/- sq. yd. Complainant made a request vide letter 06.10.07 and also requested for a better location. As a result OP, allotted him on 30.11.07, plot no.H-65, Type D with same terms & condition at same place. As on 08.12.07, he had paid Rs.7,75,000/- and balance of Rs.1,43,000/- remained.

It is alleged that OP assured that development was in progress and the plot would be handed over shortly. This remained only a promise and OP sought more & more time for this and then stopped responding and therefore this complaint for compensation and direction to handover the possession was filed.

The OP in reply did not on facts controverted anything, but only denied everything. It took no plea of cancellation of booking for any fault of complainant or no agreement. It rather assured in Para6 on merits that possession of the plot would be handed over shortly, and every endeavor will be made to expedite it and on complainant making the balance due, possession will be given. It relied on no demand letter issued by it, or offer of possession etc.

During proceedings in the Forum on 02.04.14, OP Counsel stated that plots are ready for possession to complainant on complainant paying Rs.20 lakhs due to OP. The complainant was directed to visit the site and OP was to inform of installment of roads etc for getting the plot registered in complainant name.

The matter lingered till 27.02.15, for delivering possession on payment of dues and status of H-65, allotted plot was sought. OP filed an affidavit of Nishta Sharma, A.R of OP on 07.08.15, stating that plot no.H-65, has been allotted to some other third party Mr. Parvesh, and documents of allotment were filed. These documents show that allotment was made to him on 20.11.14 of H-65, already allotted to complainant.

The OP offered an alternative, which is not acceptable to complainant. The complainant moved application, alleging cheating with Court & him.

We have considered the case in its entirely and are shocked at the conduct of OP with complainant, and what is stated and show in Forum. As already stated, this complaint is pending for H-65 plot since 2010, and OP itself on 02.04.14, stated that plot was ready for possession and time was sought by it and given by Forum, to settle it by taking dues. While the case is in progress, how and why OP transferred the same plot, allotted already to complainant, to third party Parvesh on 20.11.14, after 02.04.14, is baffling and clearly an unfair trade practice and deception during court proceedings. It is also a deception with new buyer, who was not shared information of already existing booking with complainant. This is a serious matter. Complainant has a right of specific performance on same plot H-65 as he is and was reading & willing to perform his part of contract by making balance payment. The transfer of plot is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and third parties interests are subject to prior right of complainant. The Counsel for OP has thoroughly misled the Court by arguments on change of Master Plan etc, which was prior to allotment of H-65. This is condemned.

In the given circumstances, we restrain Ghaziabad Dev. Authority from registering the plot in the name of Mr. Parvesh, based on agreement with OP on 20.11.14 and OP is directed to get the plot H-65 registered in the name of complainant within 30 days of this order. We award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to complainant.

The order shall be complied with 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 24.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER