Delhi

New Delhi

CC/855/2008

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Jan 2015

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./855 /2008                                                                                                                     Dated:

           In the matter of:

M/s. Anil Kumar Gupta (HUF)

Through Karta Shri Anil Kumar Gupta

4755, Gali Bisso Mal, Jogiwara

Nai  Sarak,  Delhi- 110006                                                                                                                      …… Complainant

 

   Versus

            M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

            (formerly Intime Promoters P. Ltd.)

            Through its  Directors

            9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 001

                                                                                                                                    …….Opposite Party

 

H.M. VYAS- MEMBER                                                       

 

                                                            ORDER

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant booked a flat in the project of the OP and made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- with Application. It is mentioned in the application that is the event offer of provisional allotment for a residential flat is made after six months; the OP would pay interest @12% per annum for the period beyond 6 months.  It is alleged that the schedule of the payment was never handed over to the complainant and believing that it would be sent in future, the complainant made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- through cheque on 20.02.2006.  No provisional allotment till November, 2006 was given by the OP and as such the complainant is entitled for interest @12% on the said amount. The OP demanded vide letter dated 30/10/2006 a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on account of sales consideration and for the purpose of fixing priorities at the time of allotment without giving the schedule of the payment.  In the said letter there was no mention as to why the interest of 12% per annum has not been paid.  The OP did not furnish any information despite request.  Vide letter dated 27.11.2007, the OP informed that the registration of the complainant had been cancelled after repeated requests and reminders for making payment.  The complainant again asked for the details from OP but of no outcome. The OP also sent letter dated 10.06.2008 informing that the registration had been cancelled for non- payment and OP would refund 50% of the booking amount. Following prayers has been made:-

1. Restore registration of the complaint,
2. Deliver to the complainant, the schedule of payments along with location, size, number of the Flat of the complainant,
3. Inform the complainant about permissions, licenses, etc. regarding change of land use, sanction of construction plains for Flat of the complaint,
4. Inform the complaint of progress/ stage of construction of a Flat of the complaint,
5. Receive payments for the cost of the Flat of the complainant  in a justified manner,
6. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for harassment, tension and agony undergone by the complainant at hands of the Respondents,
7. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 22,000/- as costs of the present complainant and its proceedings.

The OP was noticed who resisted the complaint by filing written statement/ version.  It is stated that the complainant applied for provisional allotment of one residential flat in the forthcoming Group Housing Project of the OP and made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as registration deposit.  It is admitted in the version by OP that in the application Form that the provisional allotment of residential flat would be made within 6 months from the date of encashment of the registration deposit and was subject to further adjustment in instalments. Offer for the provisional allotment was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 30.10.2006 which was duly received by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant had concealed material facts and is therefore, not entitled to any relief. The complainant had failed to make the payment of instalments as per the schedule and the OP had right to cancel the application/allotment if future payments are delayed by two months from its due date. 

As per the schedule of the payment and mutual understanding the complainant had to pay further amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-.  It is alleged that The OP requested the complainant to make the payment so that the allocation of the flat could be made. The complainant after receipt of the letter dated 30.10.2006 did not contact for acceptance of the flat nor made the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/. The reminder dated 07.03.2007 to the complainant also proved futile.  The complaint did not confirm to make the payment of the due amount and as such the cancelation of the allotment by the OP is justified. In the WS, it is also stated that the work was in progress and the work was likely to be completed soon. Prayer to dismiss the complaint has been made. 

The complainant filed rejoinder denying the version of the OP and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

            Both the parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit supporting their respective contentions.

            The complainant had also filed an application under section 13(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act praying for restraint orders against OP for disposing off the flat of the complainant.  Both the parties addressed oral arguments.

            We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevant provisions of law.

            During arguments, the complainant  states that after a lapse more than 10 years from the date of filing of the complaint and after 12 years  of making registration for allotment, the complainant  is  not interesting in taking the flat at this belated stage argued that his amount deposited by the OP may be directed to refund with interest and compensation.

The counsel for the argued that the OP can deliver the possession of flat subject to payment of all outstanding dues including the cost of flat and the interest for the delayed period.

During arguments, the complainant states that after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of filing of the complaint and after 12 years  of making registration for allotment, the complainant is not interested in taking the flat at this belated stage argued that his amount deposited by the OP may be directed to refund with interest and compensation.

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevant provisions of law.

In the given facts and circumstances on record, it is clear that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 20.02.2006 as is evident from Annexure (II) filed with the complaint.  A letter dated 30.10.2006 was also issued by OP, thereby demanding Rs.2,50,000/- was raised the said letter was followed by letter dated 27.11.2007 conveying cancellation of the registration was sent by OP Again a letter dated 10.06.2008 was issued by the OP offering  to refund 50%  of the booking amount as the  registration was cancelled due to non-payment of the demanded amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- .

            The complainant stated in the complaint that no schedule of the payment was ever provided by the OP to the complaint. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no refund of the  registration deposit  by the OP is deficiency  in service, more so in circumstances when the OP himself did not abide by the terms contained in the application form regarding payment of 12% interest,  in case, the offer of allotment is delayed.

Further, no schedule of payment was placed on record even by OP which  affirms the contentions of the complainant  that it was not provided to her.

Admittedly, the offer of allotment was made after expiry of 6 months.

In view of the above discussions considering the rival contentions of the parties and that the flat is not acceptable to the complainant at this belated stage,.  Further, the OP has failed to bring on record. The payment schedule which impliedly support the contentions of the complainant.  The complainant has since not accepted the complaint, we are, therefore, of the considered view that the OP to be deficient in service.  The ends of justice shall meet by directing the OP as under:-

1) OP to refund the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with 9% simple interest                from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 02.07.2008 till the date  of realization.

2) We further, direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.  5,000/- as litigation   cost.

The complaint and the pending application to stay for interim relief are disposed off in above terms.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on 05/04/2019

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room. 

 

 

                                                                        (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                          (H M VYAS)

                                       MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER