DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.760/2011      

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the present complaint case filed by the Complainant against OP seeking refund of the deposited amount with the OP1 on account of not completing the project within time.

1. Before coming to the facts of the complaint it is necessary to mention here that originally the complaint case was filed on 06.09.2011 as is being reflected from the judgment passed by the Ld. Predecessor on 23.09.2013 and the said complaint case was returned to the complainant for presenting to the proper court /forum having proper jurisdiction on the ground that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. The complainant thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order of Ld. Predecessor, before the Hon’ble SCDRC and the Hon’ble SCDRC vide its order dated 27.10.2022 allowed the appeal thereby holding that the order of the District Forum was wrong in returning the complaint of the complainant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and has mentioned in para 11 -13 as follows:

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the District Forum was wrong in dismissing the complaint of the Appellant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 23.09.2013 passed by District Commission in CC No. 760/2011 is set aside with no order as to costs.

12. In addition to the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the Ld. District Commission (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi 110092 for deciding the same on merit within six months from the date of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 25.11 2022

13. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment

2.  The matter was accordingly received by this Commission on 17.02.2023 and since it was directed that matter has to be decided early and since the previous file was not traceable and accordingly for receiving the file from the Hon’ble SCDRC and on the request of the counsel for complainant, that the original file is lying before Hon’ble SCDRC, a request letter to the worthy Registrar of Hon’ble SCDRC was sent for returning the file, i.e. CC/760/2011 to this Commission and even one Sh. Ravi Kumar appointed as LDC in this office was also assigned the job to visit the Hon’ble SCDRC in search of the file along with the counsel for complainant, however the file from the Hon’ble SCDRC could not be received and ultimately this Commission issued notice to OP and both the parties were requested to place respective pleadings on the court file so that file be got reconstructed. The counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OP thereafter filed the complaint and evidence on the court file and as such the Commission at present is in possession of the reconstructed file.
3. From the perusal of the judgment dated 23.09.2013 it is apparent that OP has appeared before this Commission but he had not filed any written version on the Commission’s file although the fact that evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties in support of their respective cases has been mentioned in the judgment.
4. Since, the written statement of OP is not on record, the complainant has filed his own evidence and even the written arguments. OP however has not filed the copy of evidence although OP has placed on record reply of the appeal filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble SCDRC.
5. Now, coming to the facts of the present complaint case and they are in nutshell that complainant had booked a plot measuring 175 sq. yard @ Rs.6505/- sq. ft at Shaurya City Ghaziabad of OP for which he deposited Rs.2,85,000/- to the OP on 26.11.2009 but subsequently OP informed the complainant that due to some defect in approval and due to change in the Government Policy, the project of allotment of land has got frustrated and thus OP had changed the scheme of Plot allotment and shifted to a new project namely Shauryapuram Metropolitan in 2007 a lucrative scheme and that the registered investor would get assured return of 11% p.a. from the date of investment till the date of offer of possession on deposited amount and complainant thereafter in lieu of previous proposed allotment of plot was allotted a shop bearing No.GF 69 in Shauryapuram Metropolitan project and was also given adjusted amount of Rs.3,72,500/- including the accumulated interest on deposited amount and this amount was adjusted in the new scheme/project.  Copy of receipt dated 01.10.2007 is attached as Annexure-C and thereafter another amount of Rs.284900/- was demanded by OP which was given by complainant on 19.10.2007 and the receipt of this is filed as Annexure-D. Vide letter dated 01.10.2007 the OP confirmed the said booking of the shop and also acknowledged the fact of having  a receipt of Rs.657400/- as consideration of booking in favour of the complainant. It is further mentioned that complainant has received the agreed return @ 11% p.a. upto the month of September 2010 but after September 2010 despite several request and subsequent reminders OP was not ready to hear the grievance of the complainant and despite waiting for about 9 months when the complainant neither received any return nor got possession of the shop which was assured to be given within two years, and now he is not returning the amount. It is further submitted that market price of the land has gone up and OP has to compensate the complainant or atleast return the amount with interest to the complainant but no one was ready to redress the problem of the complainant and thereafter a legal notice on  05.07.2011 was sent but complainant has not received any reply and accordingly complainant has filed present complaint thereby praying that OP be directed to pay Rs.6,57,400/- to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. October 2010 along with compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- and legal charges of Rs.22,000/-. 
6. In support of the complaint the complainant has placed on record Annexure-B i.e. receipt of Rs.2,85,000/-, another receipt of Rs.3,72,500/- and then receipt of Rs.2,84,900/- dated 20.10.2007 and letter of confirmation is also placed on record dated 26.11.2005. 
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.

Firstly, the version of OP is not on record as the written statement was not filed before the Ld. Predecessor, and therefore the Commission is not having any assistance as what would have been the version of the OP however from the facts as stated by the OP in reply to the appeal filed by him before Hon’ble SCDRC although various objections have been raised by the OP but the fact that this amount was paid, does not appear to have been denied specifically at any stage. Therefore, the fact that complainant deposited certain amount with the OP and OP has not completed the project even up to today are not disputed. The issue w.r.t. jurisdiction has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble SCDRC and after the reconstruction of file the OP has not filed any written arguments before this Commission. One fact is also admitted by the complainant that he deposited certain amount in 2005 to the extent of Rs.285000/- and certain interest was being paid to him upto September 2010 and that amount accumulated to the extent of Rs.372500/- in the year 2007 when the OP informed the complainant that this project is not viable and complainant can be adjusted in another project and that amount of Rs.285000/- with interest had been accumulated to the extent of Rs.372500/- and thereafter complainant has deposited another amount of Rs.284900/-. Not only this the complainant is also admitting that he had received the assured return upto the year 2010 @ 11% of this amount i.e. for about 5 years. Not completing the project is definitely a deficiency and that deficiency continued when OP had transferred the allotment of complainant in another project and even the project where the shop was to be given to the complainant, was not ready and all this compelled the complainant to file the present complaint case. Therefore the deficiency on the part of OP stands established on the face of it.   

• In view all these facts the OP is directed to refund Rs.5,69,500/- i.e. Rs.2,85,000/- given on 26.11.2009 (as interest on this amount has already been paid) and Rs.2,84,500/- given on 01.10.2007 to the complainant with interest @ 11% p.a. i.e. from October 2010 till the date of actual realization.     
• The OP would also pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.   

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the OP would pay interest @ 14% p.a. from October 2010, till the date of actual payment. 

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 24.10.2024.