Delhi

New Delhi

CC/966/2010

Ajay Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 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/966/10                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Ajay Goel,

Rakhi Goel,

Both R/o B-66, Ayudh Vihar, Plot no.3,

Sector-13, Dwarka, Delhi-75

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd.,

9, K.G Marg, New Delhi

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complaints booked a residential flat by paying Rs.3 lakhs on 14.03.06, to OP in its Group Housing Future Projects, which were not in sight or even in planning stage at that time. There was no location, no identification of name of scheme etc, vide Annexure P-1. The OP in Oct.2006, informed that they offer a flat in ‘TDI City’ in Sonepat and demanded another Rs.3 lakhs for giving priority in allotment. The Complainant paid the same on 28.12.06 and on 08.03.07, gave flat no.T1-D401. OP further demanded Rs.1,91,786/- which was paid on 18.06.07 and next installment was to be paid on ground floor.

It is alleged that Complainant waited and waited and not getting any communication, made enquiries and came to know that there was no T-Block or tower in the project and to satisfy complainant, OP offered settlement at 50% of money deposited. Complainant filed this complaint in 2010, and till now in 2015, there is no change. The money of complainant lies with OP.

The OP in its reply claim that it spent 50% of deposit on brokerage, administration expenses etc, but there is no whisper of any T-tower, or any place or plan make it. It blames complainant for defaults in payment without any showing intention to construct and threatened cancellation.

We have heard both the parties, and find that this is one of the many hundred other similar cases, where the Forum has found OP guilty of deficiency and unfair trade practices and cheating with consumers. The facts in this case clearly show that OP has disregarded all its obligations and cheated on complainant and is still defending the case in Court rather than coming forward to resolve it.

In the circumstances, we direct OP to return Rs.7,91,786/- deposited with OP, with interest of 12% from the respective date of deposits and we award Rs.1 lakh as compensation for unfair trade practice adopted by OP and Rs.25,000/- for 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 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 28.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER