Delhi

New Delhi

CC/28/2010

Manoj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SRS Real Estate Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 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/28/10                                                                                                                                                                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

MANOJ KR. SINGLA,

R/O 804, SECTOR-37,

FARIDABAD,

HARAYANA.

 

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SRS REAL ESTATE LTD.

202, NEW DELHI HOUSE,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

SRS MULTIPLEX,

CITY CENTRE, SEC-12,

FARIDABAD-121007,

HARAYANA

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

ORDER 

MEMBER: RITU GARODIA

        The complaint pertains to non-refund of money deposited with OP on delay in completing project.  The complainant books a flat in “SRS CITY” situated at Sect-6, Paliwal, Haryana.  He paid vide cheque no.044175 dated 9.10.2006 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  The receipt by OP is annexed.  The project was delayed and complainant sought refund by legal notice dated 2.6.2009 which was not given.  Consequently, complaint was filed.

        OP in its version has stated that provisional registration of allotment was done through one Mr. Raju Gupta.  OP further alleges that Rs.90,000/- was paid by complainant  as Rs.1,10,000/- was paid by Mr. Raju Gupta and therefore, a sum of    Rs. 1,10,000/- was refunded to Mr. Raju Gupta.  OP has also annexed undertaking by complainant which states that Rs.1,10,000/- has been financed by Mr. Raju Gupta.

        Arguments were made by both parties. Complainant has orally submitted that sheaf of blank forms were signed by him and he is not aware of any undertaking He further stated that handwriting on the said undertaking belonged to someone else. Perusal of receipt by OP shows that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid through cheque from complainant’s account in Allahabad.  Once the amount has been accepted by OP from complainant’s accounts, he cannot pay part amount to some unknown person.  The undertaking placed on record is against public policy.  Even otherwise, the undertaking is undated and not in complainant’s handwriting. 

        OP has paid a sum of Rs.1,52,850/- on 18.12.2014 towards Rs.90,000/- with interest paid by complainant.  In our considered view, OP is guilty of deficiency in service in not refunding the balance amount.  We, therefore, direct OP to pay Rs.1,10,000/- with 9% interest from date of deposit till payment .  We also award a compensation of rs.25,000/- towards compensation for harassment, mental agony, inclusive of litigation expenses.                               

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.

File be consigned to record room.

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

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 21.08.2015.

 

 

 

 (C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER