Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1171/2012

Krishen Seru - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

07 Jul 2016

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./1171/2012                                       Dated:

In the matter of:

1.     Mr. Sri Krishen Seru,

        S/o Pt MahanandJoo Seru,

        R/o 1/29 Old RajenderNagar,

        New Delhi-110060.

 

2.     Mr. Deepak Seru

        S/o Mr. Sri KrishenSeru,

        R/o 1/29, Old Rajender Nagar,

        New Delhi-110060.

 

        ……..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

1.     U-TURN HOUSING PVT. LTD.

        1507, 15^th Floor, Ambadeep Building,

        14,K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

2.     Mr. NIKHIL TRIPATHI/SMT. NEELAM TRIPATHI,

        Directors, U-Turn Housing Pvt. Ltd.

        1507, 15^th Floor, Ambadeep Building,

        14,K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

3.     M/S RAJASTHAN LAND DEVELPERS (PVT) LTD.

        Through its Directors

        69/4,New Sanganer Road, Mansarowar,

        Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020.

 

               .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

 

ORDER

 

        The complainant booked one plot in residential scheme of the OP 1 & OP 2 and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- vide cheque dated 11/4/2006 towards the booking money and the same was duly acknowledged by the OP vide its receipt No. 0279 dated 11/4/06. 

        It is alleged by the complainant that OP-2 allotted him the customer code No. C00235 and assured that the possession of the plot would be given to the complainant within 18 months and the payments were demanded from him from time to time in installments.  It is stated by the complainant that the total price of the plot was Rs. 5,95,000/-

        It is alleged by the complainant that believing on the representation of OP No. 2 he paid a total sum of Rs. 5,95,000/- to OP in installment as under:

Cheque No.	Date	Amount	Receipt No.	Date
300762	11/4/2006	Rs.1,75,000/-	0279	11/4/2006
300771	20/9/2006	Rs. 48,125/-	01183	12/3/2007
676829	14/12/2008	Rs. 2,23,125/-	01667	22/12/2008
220552	09/12/2008	Rs.1,48,750/-	01668	22/12/2008

 

        It is further alleged by the complainant that in view of the substantial payment made to OP 1 & 2, OP 1 & 2 had neither handed over the possession of plot nor the title documents like the sale deed, despite him several visits. Hence this complaint.

        Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs through Regd. AD Post for 28/2/13 and 3/5/13.  Mr. Sanau Reman Ld. Counsel for OP 1 & 2 and Sh. Mohit Ld. Counsel for OP 3 put their appearance on 3/5/13.  Copies of complaint were supplied to the OPs and the matter was fixed for written statement of OPs for 31/7/13. Thereafter OPs choose not to contest by abstaining from the case and as such OP No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parte on 28/10/13.  On 28/10/13 counsel for OP 3 sought adjournment for filing reply, since OP 3 failed to file its reply on the next date of hearing i.e. 11/11/13, its defence was struck off.

        The complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of complaint.

         We have heard ex-parte arguments advanced at the bar and have persued the record.

        The complainant has placed on record the copy of application form, copy of the receipts issued by the OP, copy of the allotment detail, copy of the demand letter issued by OP No. 1& 2, copy of the Bank Statement of the payments made to OP 1 & 2, copy of possession letter issued by OP 3 in support of his case.

From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. The bare perusal of the documents make it clear that OPs failed to hand over the possession of the plot to the complainant within 18 months as assured by the  OP in his letter of  provisional allotment despite receiving total amount.  This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

In view of the above discussion we hold OP-1 and OP-2 guilty of deficiency in service and direct them to comply the directions jointly and severally as under:

 

1. Refund to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,95,000/-alongwith simple     interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing of complaint till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by him.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP-1 and/or OP-2  within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs. 40,000/–. As regards OP-3 we do not find any deficiency in service, so complaint is dismissed against OP-3. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Pronounced in open Forum on ........................

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                         (H M VYAS)

                         MEMBER