Delhi

New Delhi

CC/115/2015

Geetu Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 Apr 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

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

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.115/2015

In the matter of:-

Smt. GEETU ARORA

W/O SHRI VIPIN ARORA

R/O A-3/145, SECTOR-5

ROHINI, DELHI-85

THROUGH ITS GENERAL ATTORNEY

SHRI OM PRAKASH ARORA                                  ....COMPLAINANT

 

VS

1. U-TURN HOUSING PVT. LTD.

1507, AMBADEEP BUILDING,

14, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,

NEW DELHI-110001

 

2. FUTURE REALTORS

G-1, N. BLOCK , SAKET,

NEW DELHI-110017

 

3. RAJASTHAN LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.

69/4, NEW SANGANER ROAD,

MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR-302020                             ....OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Quorum:

 

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

Mr. Bariq Ahmad, Member

Mr. Shekhar Chandra, Member

 

 

                                                                                                                                     Date of Institution:-23.02.2015                                                                                                                                                                         Date of Order   : -   05.04.2023.

  

 

 

 

ORDER

 

SHEKHAR CHANDRA, MEMBER:

 

 

This is a Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

1. The Complainant is an NRI. The Complaint is being pursued by Mr. O.P. Arora who has been appointed as General Attorney by the   Complainant - Smt. Geetu Arora.

 

2. The Complainant states that the opposite party No.1 had published an advertisement to sell plots of sizes 200, 300, 400, 500, 800 Sq. Yards in Silver City, Diggi Road, Jaipur and opposite party No.2 had induced the Complainant and repeatedly approached for the purchase of plots of 200 Sq. Yards. Allured by the advertisement and also under the influence of the opposite party No.2, the Complainant booked a plot in the year 2006 through a brochure issued by the opposite party No.1 at the instance of opposite party No.2.

 

3. Full consideration of the Rs.8,60,000/- had been paid to the opposite party No.1 in the following manner:

DATE	RECEIPT NO	CHEQUE NO.	BANK NAME	AMOUNT
13.05.2006	0540	694191 dated 10.05.2006	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	1,10,000.00
13.05.2006	0541	174598 dated 15.05.2006	Canara Bank	65,000.00
28.07.2006	0912	694192 dated 28.07.2006	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	4,41,000.00
27.06.2008	UT-01546	046102 dated 27.06.2008	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	2450.00
27.06.2008	UT-01547	046104 dated 27.06.2008	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	23000.00
28.06.2008	UT-01548	046104 dated 28.06.2008	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	23000.00
28.06.2008	UT-01549	046104 dated 28.06.2008	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	25000.00
28.06.2008	UT-01550	046104 dated 28.06.2008	Indian Overseas Bank Janpath	3000.00

The receipts are annexed herewith as Annexure A-3 (Colly).

 

4. Thus the complainant had made a full payment of Rs.8,60,000/- which include cost of plot, development charges, maintenance charges and registration charges of Rs.42,000/- from Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur in the year 2009.

 

5. After receiving total amount, opposite party No.1 had allotted, a plot bearing No. A-372 in favour of the Complainant in the first instance but while entering into an agreement, the company mentioned plot No. A-350 in the agreement. But when the actual possession was given on papers on 24.05.2019 by M/s Rajasthan Development Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.3, it mentioned plot No.1-38, Silver city Block-1, Diggi Malpura Road, Jaipur. Since then the complainant has been pursuing the matter for handing over the physical possession with the officials of the opposite party No.1 and for registration of plot (Patta) of plot from Jaipur Development Authority but the Opposite Party No. 1 has kept complainant in the dark and always using delaying tactics on one false ground or the other.
6. After numerous visits by the complainant at the office of opposite party No.1, on 30.08.2013, the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that all the hurdles with regard to the registration of plot are over and the registration process in this regard shall be started soon.
7. It is stated by the Complainant that in the month of June 2014, the opposite party No.1 promised to get the registration with JDA in the month of July 2014 and in this regard the opposite party No.1 got an application letter in the prescribed format filled in by the complainant for registration of the plot with JDA with the promise to get the matter listed within 15 days but till today the Opposite Party No. 1 has been avoiding on one false pretext or the other and is not giving the physical possession of the plot nor getting the registration of the plot in the record of the JDA till date and thus the opposite party No.1 in connivance with opposite parties No.2 and 3 have cheated the complainant of her valuable sum of Rs.8,60,000/- which the complainant had to part with the hope to get the plot registered and sale deed executed.
8. The Complainant submits that neither the complainant has been given the possession and sale deed executed in her favour nor the money has been refunded by the opposite party No.1. The complainant has suffered all these years from the year 2006 to till date in respect of monetary, physically and mentally etc. for which opposite party No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally responsible for cheating the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to damages on account of committing fraud upon the complainant by all the opposite parties.
9. On 07.10.2014 the Complainant also lodged a criminal complaint for illegal activities of cheating and fraud committed by the opposite party No.1 to SHO Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the said complaint is still under investigations. A legal notice dated 14.11.2014 was also issued by the Complainant to the opposite parties but the opposite parties refused to accept the notice with the remarks "BAAR BAAR JAANE PAR BAND MILTA HAI" and "no such persons reside there". However, the opposite party No.3 has received the notice and sent the reply.
10. Thus this Complaint with the prayers to issue directions to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- to the Complainant. It is also prayed that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- be awarded as damages on account of mental tension, harassment and agony to the Complainant with interest @ 15% per annum.
11. Notice of this Complaint was served on the Opposite Parties. Reply has been filed by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter the Opposite Parties absented from appearing in this matter. Lastly on 14.11.2022, the defence of the Opposite Parties was struck off and the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. By and large the Opposite Parties have admitted the facts alleged in the Complaint but the relief is being denied on some technical grounds. However, the Opposite Parties do not deny the fact of having received the amount and the physical possession of the plot has not been handed over to the Complainant though the money has been pocketed by the Opposite Parties since 2006.
13. We will now deal with the main issue at hand. We find that there has been unreasonable delay in giving possession as per the Agreement. The Complainant made substantial payment to the Opposite Party with an expectation of getting timely possession. The Opposite Parties have not given any justification for delay. The Complainants cannot wait for an indefinite time as she has invested her hard earned money with the intention to get delivery of the plot on time. The Complainant booked a plot in the year 2006. The Complainant has every right to claim refund along with a reasonable compensation for the unreasonable delay. There are a number of Case Laws wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided favourably on the right of the buyers for getting refund of their money in case of undue and unreasonable delay by the Developer in giving possession. In case of Emmar MGF Land Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Amit Puri- {(II 2015 CPJ 568 (NC)},decided on 30.03.2015, Hon’ble National Commission has held as under : "After the promised date of delivery, it is the discretion of the Complainant whether to accept the offer of possession, if any, or to seek refund of the amounts paid by him with some reasonable compensation and it is well within his right to seek for refund of the principal amount with interest and compensation."
14. We also find it a fit case to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Devasis Rudra, II (2019) CPJ 29 SC, decided on 25.03.2019 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as hereunder 

"It would be manifestly unreasonable to construe the contract between the parties as requiring the buyer to wait indefinitely for possession. By 2016, nearly seven years had elapsed from the date of the agreement. Even according to the developer, the completion certificate was received on 29 March 2016. This was nearly seven years after the extended 9 date for the handing over of possession prescribed by the agreement. A buyer can be expected to wait for possession for a reasonable period. A period of seven years is beyond what is reasonable. Hence, it would have been manifestly unfair to non-suit the buyer merely on the basis of the first prayer in the reliefs sought before the SCDRC. There was in any event a prayer for refund. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the orders passed by SCDRC and by the NCDRC for refund of moneys were justified."

 

 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Khanna & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5785 of 2019 decided on 11.1.2021 has held as under:-

"The Developer made an alternate offer of allotment of apartments in Phase 1 of the Project. The allottees are however not bound to accept because of the inordinate delay in completing the construction of the Towers where units were allotted to them. The Occupation Certificate is not available even as on date, which clearly amounts to deficiency of service. The allottees cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the apartments allotted to them nor can they be bound to take the apartments in Phase 1 of the Project. The allottees have submitted that they have taken loans, and are paying high rates of interest to the tune of 7.9% etc. to the Banks. Consequently, we hold that the allottees in Chart B are entitled to refund of the entire amount deposited by them".

 

15. We do not agree with the contentions and submissions made by the opposite parties. We, therefore, direct the opposite party to pay/refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty Thousand) with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till realization, within six weeks from today, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to enhanced interest @ 12 per cent per annum. The complainant shall also be entitled to compensation for mental harassment and agony, which is quantified to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). We also award Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as cost of litigation in favour of complainant and against the opposite party.

File be consigned to record room along with a copy of the order. A copy of this order be provided/sent to all parties free of cost. The order be uploaded on the website of this Commission.

 

                                     

 

 

[Poonam Chaudhry]

                                                                                                      President

                              [Bariq Ahmad]                                                                               [Shekhar Chandra]

                                        Member                                                                                 Member