Delhi

New Delhi

CC/454/2014

Sh. Rajeev Bhasin - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. U-Turn Housing Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002

 

Case No.CC-454/2014

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

Dr. Rajeev Bhasin

C-36, Sector-14,

Noida – 201301.

Uttar Pradesh

....Complainant

 

Versus

 

The Managing Director,

U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.  

1507, Ambadeep Building,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110001.

...Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

                                                          Date of Institution:17.06.2014

 Date of Order     : 25.05.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

SHEKHAR CHANDRA, MEMBER

The present complaint has been filed under section 17 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against Opposite Party (in short OP) alleging deficiency of services.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant had booked a plot in the OP’s project named Silver City at Diggi Raod Jaipur. He had made the total payment of Rs.7,17,500/- towards the purchase of said property against receipt nos. R-04581, R-04582, R-04584, R-04584, 0377, UT00558.
3. The complainant states that even after the above said payment was made, neither the OP allotted specific unit nor he was provided with the allotment letter. Further, even after delay in giving possession of the property for 5 years, there was no sign that the OP would give the possession in near future also.  The most disappointing part was, even after continued follow ups, the complainant was never given the allotment letter and on enquiring regarding the same the OP staff had never given a proper reply to justify the delay.
4. The complainant further states that after seeing the pace of development of the concerned project and the way he had been treated by the OP staff, he knew that OP would never provide him with the allotment letter and possession of the property even in near future. Moreover, till date there has been no noticeable progress in the development of the said project which could make him believe that he would not be receiving the possession of the said plot even in the near future. Hence, requested the OP staff to cancel his allotment and refund the payment made by him.
5. It is submitted by the complainant states that, moreover, the OP is liable to pay the penalty not only on delay in providing the possession of plot but on keeping the customers on hold by giving false assurances. To cause the delay in giving the possession for 5 years of property along with allotment letter is not acceptable by any customer. The complainant had invested his hard earned money in the project of the OP with the hope of secured future by having his own house. However, the OP had failed to understand the importance of the same.
6. The complainant further states that in spite of repeated follow ups, he has received no satisfactory response from the OP till date which is extremely appalling. The entire episode has left the complainant in a bitter taste and he is extremely disappointed with the OP’s pathetic and unprofessional services. The complainant has been facing lot of mental stress and immense loss of time and money due to this incident and even after making several requests to the officials of the OP, no positive response has been received by him.
7. It is submitted by the complainant that he even sent a letter dated May 5^th, 2014 to the OP stating in detail his grievance in the hope of receiving a positive response, but sadly had received no satisfactory reply.
8. Thus, the complainant states that the above mentioned acts and conduct of the OP prima facie makes them liable under section 2(1)(g) for deficiency in service and under section 2(1)(r) for carrying unfair trade practice of the CP Act.  The complainant submits that this Commission has got pecuniary as also territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate as the OP carries its business from Delhi. Hence, the matter falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. As regard cause of action, it is submitted that the cause of action is continuing till date as the OP has not taken any action on complainant’s grievance. Therefore, the complaint is within the limitation period. The complainant prays that the OP be directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.7,17,500/- along with interest of 18% p.a. at the earliest with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
9. In reply to this complaint case, the OP submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable as the complainant has not filed any document/payment receipts in support of his complaint to show that the complainant has ever booked his plot with the answering OP. Further it is submitted that the present complaint filed by the complainant is under section 17 of the CP Act which is not legally maintainable as the said provision pertains to the jurisdiction of State Commission, therefore the present complaint may be dismissed on this ground alone.
10. This Commission need not to go through all the pleas of the OP as the OP has made  a statement as far back as on 09.09.2014 for settlement of the present claim. The said order is reproduced below:-

“Present JD Mr. Nikhil Tripathi from custody on production wrrant. JD intends to makie payment in other cases pending in the Forum for which his lawyer will make arrangement. A list of cases in which the complainants are ready to settle on principal amount has also be submitted to the Forum. Be produced for further compliance on 16.10.2014.”

 

11. Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to number of cases already pending for recovery of amount against the OP. In large number of cases, an award/ decree has already been passed by this Commission. We do not find any force in the submission of the OP and, therefore, direct the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.7,17,500/- along with interest of 9% p.a. to the complainant within six weeks. The complainant shall also be entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation. In case the OP fails to pay the claim amount within the stipulated period, the OP shall be liable to pay interest over the claimed amount at enhanced rate of 15% per annum.                                                                                        A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. The order be also uploaded in the website of the Commission (www.confonet.nic.in).

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of the order.

 

[Poonam Chaudhry]

President

 

[Bariq Ahmad]                                                                                                                [Shekhar Chandra]

    Member                                                                                                                                  Member