Delhi

New Delhi

CC/171/2014

Sh. Rameshwar Kumar Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

06 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                               NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./171/2014                                         Dated:

In the matter of:

        Sh. Rameshwar Kumar Mehto,

        S/o Sh. Ram Prakash,

       E-391, Greater Kailash Part-II,

       New Delhi-48.

                                                             …… Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s SRS REAL ESTATE LTD.,

Regd. Office 202, 27, New Delhi House,

Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

Also at:

 

Through its Managing Director,

SRS Multiplex City Centre,

Sector-12, Faridabad,

Haryana-121007.                   

 

2. Sh. Rajesh Singla, Director,

SRS Real Estate Ltd.,

SRS Multiplex City Centre,

Sector-12, Faridabad,

 Haryana-121007.                                                                             

……. Opposite parties

 

 

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the OP Co. issued an allotment letter dt. 1.11.2007  to the complainant for booking of  two bed room residential flat having super area of approx. 1200 sq.ft. in its project named as “ Group Housing Project” known as SRS Residency to be developed on land situated at Sector 88, Faridabad.  As per agreement dated 1.11.2007, the complainant paid total  sum of Rs.9,93,200/- in seven installments on different dates  to the OP-1. 

2.     It is alleged by the complainant that as per the agreement, OP assured that its company shall complete the construction of this project latest by 30.6.2009.  The complainant enquired from the office bearer of OP  regarding the status of the project but there was no satisfactory response as to  when the  project would be completed. Moreover, OP through a letter dated 30.4.2011 threatened the complainant that if interest on the delayed payment was not paid, then his allotment would be cancelled.  Hence the complainant sent a legal notice to OP-1 and requested for refund the deposited money.   But OP neither allotted the flat nor refunded the deposited money till date, complainant therefore approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.   

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  In its reply, OP stated that its registered office is not situated at Barakhamba Road, CP, New Delhi,  it is situated at Faridabad on 16.6.2010 and all the transaction and correspondences in relation to complainant’s booking/allotment took place from Faridabad Office, therefore, this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the present complaint.  It is further stated that due to non-payment,  complainant’s allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 18.5.2011, which was duly received by the complainant.  It is further stated that the present complaint was lodged in the year 2014 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of two years  prescribed under section 24 A of CP Act, hence, hopelessly barred by limitation. Prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.     Complainant has placed on record the copy of schedule, copy of allotment letter copy of receipt issued by the OP against the payment received, Copies of the letters exchanged between the parties and copy of legal Notice issued to OP in support of his case. On the other hand, Sh. Suresh Arora, Authorized Representative has also filed the affidavit on behalf of OP.  OP has also filed a cancellation intimation letter to the complainant.

5.     It is argued on behalf of OP that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum on the issue of  pecuniary, territorial jurisdiction as well as the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, hence the same be dismissed on these grounds.

6.     It is argued on behalf of the complainant that he had booked the unit with the OP, the basic price of the unit in question is Rs.15,60,000/- and in the prayer clause, he has not clamed any interest, compensation and litigation charges, hence, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  The letters dated 7.12.10, 29.12.10, 30.4.2011, 18.5.11 and  29.11.18 placed on record by the parties clearly shows that the part of cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence  this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  Vide order dated 29.4.2014, the predecessor bench of this Forum allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint, hence, plea taken by the OP that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation is not sustainable, and further claimed be allowed.

7.     Bare perusal of the letters/communications  placed on record by both the parties clarified that these letters were issued by the Barakhamba office of the OP Co. which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence, we are of  view that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint.  As the application for condonation of delay was already allowed by our predecessor bench vide order dated 29.4.2014, the present complaint is not barred by limitation. Letter dated 11.8.2009 issued by OP to the complainant clarified that the basic sale price of the unit in question is Rs.15,60,000/- and in his complaint, the complainant has not claimed any relief besides the prayer that the direction be given to the OP to cancel the letter dated 18.5.2011 and handover the physical possession to the complainant.  As the cost of the unit is below Rs.20 lacs, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint. 

8.     The allotment letter was signed by the parties in year 2007 and till date the OP had neither handed over the possession nor refunded the money.  The OP in its written statement itself admitted that it is ready to refund the money deposited to the complainant after deducting the earnest money according to the terms and conditions of the allotment, but till date OP had failed to handover the possession of the unit to the complainant. 

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that it would meet the end of justice if the OP be directed to refund the amount deposited without deducting the earnest money as the OP is not in a position to handover the possession of the unit.  Holding  OP guilty of   deficiency in services and direct it as under :- 

1. Refund  to the complainant a sum of Rs.9,93,200/- along with 9 % interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e.  26.2.2014  till payment .

 

2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/ on account of mental agony suffered by him. 

 

3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- toward cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 06/03/2019.

 

 

                                          (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                   (H M VYAS)

        MEMBER                                                            MEMBER