Delhi

East Delhi

CC/856/2013

RAJIV GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARSHAVNATH DEVELOP. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 856-13

 

Shri Rajiv Garg

S/o Shri Radhay Shyam aggarwal

R/o 365, Jagriti Enclave

Delhi – 110 092                                                                          ….Complainant

Vs.

M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Regd. Off.: Parsvnath Metro Tower

Near Shahdara Metro Station

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

Through its Director/A.R./Manager

 

Corporate Office at 6^th Floor

Arunchal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi – 110 001                                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 28.09.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 02.11.2017

Judgment Passed on: 10.11.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by the complainant, Shri Rajiv Garg, against M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. (OP) with allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

2.        Facts of the present complaint are that the complainant paid      Rs. 1,75,000/- on 28.08.2004 vide receipt no. 4068, Rs. 3,80,000/- on 30.03.2006 vide receipt no. PC003654 thus, being the substantial amount towards the cost of the plot measuring 300 sq. yards.  At the time of booking, the complainant was promised that the possession of the plot will be handed over within a period of 6-9 months from the date of registration/booking and in case of delay in delivery of possession; the complainant will get interest @ 10% on the amount deposited. 

            On 28.02.2007, the name of the complainant, Shri Rajiv Garg, was endorsed in the place of Mr. Kalyan Singh, the original allottee.  It has further been stated that vide letter dated 25.05.2011, OP sought more time for the allotment of the plot.  Despite making all the payments as and when demanded by OP, the possession has not been handed over.

            Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP to deliver/allot/hand over possession of the plot measuring 300 sq. yds.; award interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount deposited  from 2006 up to the delivery of possession; Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and pain and Rs. 1,50,000/- cost of litigation.

            The complainant has annexed the copy of advance towards registration of plot, copy of letters dated 24.06.2009, 19.07.2010, letter of endorsement issued in favor of complainant by OP dated 28.02.2007, receipts issued by OP dated 25.08.2004 and 30.03.2006, copy of letter dated 25.05.2011 issued by OP and copy of ledger accounts as on 26.08.2013 with the complaint.

3.        Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  WS on behalf of OP was filed where they took several pleas such as this Forum did not have pecuniary jurisdiction as the subject value was more than               Rs. 20,00,000/-; the complainant was not the original allottee and receipt was purchased by the complainant from open market; that the complainant in his Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity Bond dated 17.04.2006, had agreed to accept the refund of deposited amount from OP with simple interest @ 9% from the date of acceptance of nomination.

            It was also stated that booking was made by the complainant for investment purposes and as the present complaint involved complicated questions of facts and law, thus, it could not be decided in summary proceedings.  Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied seeking dismissal of the complaint.

            Letter from seller dated 07.09.2006 is annexed as Annexure OP-1, Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity Bond as Annexure OP-2

4.        In replication to the WS filed by OP, the complainant stated that the value of the plot in question was Rs. 11,10,000/- as per the agreement executed thus, bringing it within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.  It was stated that the complainant had paid more than 50% of the value of the plot and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the complaint and denied those of the WS.

5.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and got exhibited receipts of payments as Ex.CW1/A (colly.), letter of endorsement dated 28.02.2007 as Ex.CW1/B, letter dated 25.05.2011 by OP seeking more time for allotment of plot as Ex.CW1/C.

            OP examined Shri Ramesh Chander Gupta, General Manager (CRM) who reiterated the contents of their reply and got exhibited copy of letter dated 07.09.2006 as Ex.OP1/1 and Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity Bond as Ex.OP2/2.

6.        We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the parties.  First deciding on the preliminary objections taken by OP with respect to the pecuniary jurisdiction, the complainant has annexed receipt of advance towards registration of plot, where the rate per       sq. yd. is Rs. 4,000/-, so the cost of the flat is Rs. 12,00,000/-, which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this forum. 

            The second objection taken by OP with respect to the complainant not being the original allottee also falls flat, as when OP has endorsed the name of the complainant vide endorsement letter exhibited as Ex.CW1/B, they are estopped from raising this objection. 

            During the course of arguments, the question with respect to the quantum of interest and the date from which the interest was to be paid was raised by the OP.  OP has got exhibited Affidavit-cum-Undertaking and Indemnity Bond as Ex.OP-2/2.  It was argued on behalf of the counsel for OP that the complainant was bound by the same, where he has agreed to accept interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of acceptance of their nomination, which is being reproduced:

“That I agree that if I am not allotted any plot in the present future projects, then I will accept the refund of the deposited money with the company alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of acceptance of our nomination by the company.”

           

            This argument of the counsel  for OP cannot be considered as once the complainant has stepped into the shoes of original allottee, which has been duly acknowledged and endorsed by OP then the complainant is entitled to all the benefits/rights and privileges which the original allottee had.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the interest from the date of first payment which is 28.08.2004.  If we will take a look on letter dated 25.03.2011 where OP has sought some more time for allotment, makes it clear that the OP had failed to deliver the possession as promised in their “advance towards registration of plot” document. 

            Therefore, OP has indulged in deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice by not allotting the plot even after a lapse of 09 years and using the hard earned money of the complainant.   Hence, we allow the present complaint with directions to OP to refund                    Rs. 5,55,000/- alongwith 9% interest from 28.08.2004 till realization.  We also award Rs. 75,000/- compensation which includes the cost of litigation.      

            Order be complied within 45 days from the receipt of order.  If not complied, the amount of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order.        

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President