Delhi

New Delhi

CC/661/2012

Raj Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Atul Gupta & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

26 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/661/12                              Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta,

R/o C-101, Sukh Sagar Apartmens,

Sector-9, Plot no.12, Dwarka, Delhi-110077

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Sh. Atul Gupta,
2. Sh. Vikas Gupta,
3. Sh. Gopal Sony

All Directors,

AMR Infrastructure Ltd.,

806, Surya Kiran Building,

K.G Marg, Delhi-01

Also at:

2425/1, AMR House,

Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complaint is against the non-delivery of a shop no.F007, in kassel Valley, Greater Noida, project of OP, till even after 6 years of booking on 30.10.06. The complainant deposited Rs.12,25,182/-. Seeing no response, they sought refund and filed this complaint of deficiency after giving legal notice.

The OP3, the Company contested that he deposited, totaling to Rs.10,12,582/- not Rs.12,25,182/- against total consideration of Rs.57,89,736/-. It has disputed the willingness of complainant to pay balance despite written and telephone reminders and failure to execute by him of buyer agreement. It is stated that complainant wants to avoid the arrears, interest and forfeiture clause as per condition of terms of allotment. It has offered to return the deposit with deduction of 10% of basic sale price, as earnest money.

 We have considered the rival case and the evidence of OP and complaint in support of their case. It is seen that OP has issued 3 reminders inclusive of final letter in 2013, demanding 50% of the balance amount. In more of these reminders there is any mention of construction linked status of the shop to link various demands. There is no document to show if buyer agreement was sent to complainant. Likewise complainant has also not produced any correspondence initiated by him, to know further construction or in reply to demands made and sent by OP. The shop booked for earning livelihood cannot be called a commercial purpose unless it is purchased for selling it further.

In our considered view, both the parties are equally to blame, as no agreement is executed between the parties, to say that ‘earnest money’ clause is agreed. In such circumstances, OP is entitled to deduct 15% of the deposited amount, for complainant not coming forward with the obligations to make payment, and OP should have return the deposit after deducting 15% as usual process fee. In the circumstances, we direct OP to return the deposited amount after deducting 15% and pay interest of 7% from date of cancellation till payment on the balance for keeping the same after cancellation and not returning it. We allow Rs.20,000/- 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 26.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER