Haryana

StateCommission

CC/109/2015

RAJESH CHATRATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MVL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

HARISH CHHABRA

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No     :    109 of 2015

Date of Institution:    25.06.2015

Date of Decision :     03.02.2017

 

1.      Rajesh Chatrath s/o Sh. Deoraj Chatrath

2.      Mehek Chatrath d/o Sh. Rajesh Chatrath

Residents of 27, Golden House, near VIP Club, Kachna Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chattisgarh. 

                                      Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s MVL Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having registered office at B-86/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 & having Corporate Office at Millennium Plaza, Tower A, Ground Floor, Sushant Lok I, Sector 27, Gurgaon through its Managing Director Sh. Prem Adip Rishi.

2.      The Managing Director, M/s MVL Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having registered office at B-86/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Harish Chhabra, Advocate for Complainants.

                             Shri Sunil Nehra, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                    Rajesh Chatrath and his daughter Mehek Chatrath-complainants filed complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring as under:-

2.                By going through the advertisement of M/s MVL Limited and its functionary-Opposite Parties, the complainants applied for IT/Cyber Space with the opposite parties vide application Exhibit C-1 and paid Rs.3,80,000/- on 10.12.2009 at Village Begampur Khatola, Gurgaon. The total price of the space was Rs.41,26,800/-. A Buyer’s Agreement (Exhibit C-2) was executed between the complainants and the opposite parties. The opposite parties allotted IT/Cyber Space No.6, Floor 3, Super area 1086 Square feet to the complainant at the rate of Rs.3800/- per square feet. In all, the complainants paid Rs.38,06,350/- to the opposite parties vide demand letter/receipt Exhibits C-3 and C-4.  As per Clause 19 of the agreement, the possession of the space was to be delivered within three years from the date of agreement. However, the opposite parties failed to do. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainants filed complaint seeking refund of the deposited amount, that is, Rs.38,06,350/-.

3.                The Opposite Parties contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that as per Clause of the agreement in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties to deliver the possession within three years of the agreement, the complainants were to serve 90 days notice to the opposite parties which they (complainants) failed to do so. Rather, the complainants served the notice dated 14.02.2015, that is, after about one year and one month whereas the date of agreement was 15.01.2011. Denying the claim of the complainants, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                In evidence, complainant Rajesh Chatrath appeared as CW-1 and reiterated the facts stated in the complaint. He has also tendered his affidavit (Exhibit C-6). On the other hand, opposite parties in their evidence tendered affidavit of Rakesh Gupta.

5.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                Undisputedly, the complainants had booked a space in IT/Cyber India business Centre at Village Begampur Khatola, Gurgaon vide application Exhibit C-1. A Buyers’ Agreement (Exhibit C-2) was also executed between the complainants and the opposite parties. The price of the space was Rs.41,26,800/- and the complainants paid Rs.38,06,350/-. As per Clause 19 of the agreement, the possession of the space was to be delivered within a period of three years from the date of agreement which the opposite parties failed to do. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they had completed construction. Rather it is an admission by the opposite parties that they had failed to complete construction within the stipulated period.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that though the complainant has mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the complaint that the complainant was earlier working in a private job and thereafter he intended to buy the property for earning his livelihood as well as office for his unmarried daughter, who is complainant No.2. Learned counsel for the opposite parties referred to document (Exhibit-5) which is dated 30.09.2013 showing the complainant No.1 to be an employee of DK Homes Private Limited. In support, reference was made to case law cited as Punjab University versus Unit Trust of India & Ors, 2015(2) SCC 669; Birla Technologies Ltd. versus Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd., 2011(1) SCC 525 and Abhinandan Kumar vs. MVL Limited, Consumer Case No.129 of 2015, decided on 15.05.2015 by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission.  

8.                The document (Exhibit-5) relates to the year 2013. The complaint was filed on June 25^th, 2015. The complainant No.1 has specifically mentioned in paragraph No.2 that earlier he was working in a private organization. In view of this, the contention of the complainant No.1 that he had applied for livelihood has to be accepted.

9.                Though the complainant No.1 was NRI and was running IT Company there, but he had purchased/booked the space for opening centre for earning his livelihood as well as for his daughter (complainant No.2). In view of this, the judgments in Punjab University’s case (Supra); Birla Technologies Ltd’s case (Supra) and Abhinandan Kumar’s case (Supra) are not applicable to the present case being on different footings.

10.              Hence, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,06,350/- to the complainants alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till the date of realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment etcetera and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses. The entire amount be paid to the complainants within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realization. It calls for pointed notice that under Section 27 of the Act, if the opposite parties fails or omits to comply with this order, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.              

 

Announced: 03.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL