Delhi

New Delhi

CC/804/2013

NEERAJ SINGLA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SUPRTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 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/804/13                                                                                                                                                                               Dated:

In the matter of:

1. MRS. NEERJA SINGHLA

W/O- MR.SUDHIR SINGHLA

R/O-C-2/2006, 23-BABAR ROAD,

BANGALI MARKET,

NEW DELHI-110027

 

MR.SUDHIR SINGHLA

S/O MR. J P SINGHLA

R/O-C-2/2006, 23-BABAR ROAD,

BANGALI MARKET,

NEW DELHI-110027

 

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. M/S. SUPERTECH LTD.

1114, HEMKUNT CHAMBER

89, NEHRU PLACE

NEW DELHI-110019

(REGISTERED OFFICE)

 

2. SUPERTECH HOUSE,

B-28,29, SECTOR-58

NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

PIN-201307

 

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

ORDER

Member :  Ritu Garodia

 

The complaint pertains to non refund of amount given to builder/OP.

The brief facts are that Rs.3,20,000/- was paid to OP on 3.9.2012 towards booking of a unit in ECO Village II on a construction linked programme.  Receipts annexed. Complaints vide letter dated 4.2.2013 requested explanations regarding various charges.  OP by its letter dated 11.3.2013 stated that escalation charges are mandatory due to increase in construction and labour costs.  Complainant by letter dated 31.3.3013  asked for modified sale agreement as well as deferment of payment plans after due allotment of unit has been made. Several correspondences were exchanges between the parties and annexed with the complaint.  The booking was cancelled vide letter dated 3.6.2013.  Therefore, a complaint was filed for refund.

OP has admitted to the deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- by Complainant as well as subsequent cancellation.  OP contends that several demand letters were sent. Subsequently, cancellation was informed and implemented.  OP alleges that amount was forfeited according to clause 6.1 of booking form.

We have considered the arguments, pleading and documents filed by both parties.  The receipt of Rs.3,20,000/- and subsequent cancellation is admitted by both parties.  The forfeiture of amount by OP is based on clause 6.1 of booking form.  Scrutiny of documents reveal that OP has filed 3 pages of allotment letter and there is no clause 6.1 mentioned in the letter.  Correspondence between the parties shows that complainant was not comfortable regarding various charges.  Explanations were sought and complainant requested to modify the agreement which was not acted upon by OP.  Therefore, a request for refund was made.  OP instead of returning the amount collected, cancelled the unit and forfeited the amount.

OP by not refunding the deposit made by complainant has acted in unscrupulous manner and tried to reap undue benefit under imaginary clause 6.1 of booking form.

We, therefore, hold OP guilty of indulging in deceptive trade practice for forfeiture of deposited amount and direct it to pay Rs.3,20,000/- with 9% interest from date of deposit to repayment.  An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded as compensation for harassment to an ordinary person by unethical and exploitative practice accepted by builders.  We also award Rs.10,000/- as 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.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER