CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.651/2010
- MRS. JASBIR KAUR,
H-73, LAJPAT NAGAR-I,
NEW DELHI- 110024.…..COMPLAINANT
Case No.652/2010
- SMT. MOHINDER KAUR SETHI
C-40, B.K. DUTT. COLONY,
LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110003.……. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD.,
A-16/B-1, FIRST FLOOR,
MOHAN COOP. INDL. ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110044..…..RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-10.12.2010
Date of Order- 27.02.2023
O R D E R
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN- PRESIDENT
Complaint Nos. 651/2010 and Complaint Nos. 652/2010 filed before us, bear similar facts and they are against the same builder/ construction Co. by the name M/s Piyush Colonizer Ltd.
Therefore, for the sake of convenience these two complaints are clubbed together and are being decided by the same judgment.
The complaints relates to deficiency in service on part of OP in non-allocation and non-allotment of a developed plot.
The brief facts as stated in complaints are that the complainants booked a plot/ flat in a residential colony developed at Palwal, Haryana. The booking was made at prelaunch stage and the requisite sanctions of Town & Country planning of Government of Haryana had not been received.
Both the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- each on 28.11.2006 at the time of booking. It is alleged that OP promised to allot the units within 9 months of booking as stated in a blank pre-formatted application of OP. Even otherwise, complainant had hoped to receive the allotment letter within twelve months from the date of application. It is further alleged that OP has been demanding infrastructure cost when even an approach road does not exist for access.
The licenses and approvals received from Government authorities have never been shown to the complainant while payments for club membership, car parking etc. are being demanded along with basic cost.
Each complainant prays for refund of booking amount with 18% interest to the tune of Rs.2,60,250/-, a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses.
OP in its written statement has admitted that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with her application for advanced registration for allotment of property in future residential projects of OP. It is, further, admitted that OP had proposed to make the allotment to the complainant at their project in Palwal, Haryana. It is alleged that this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint.
OP submits that allotment was to be made at the discretion of the OP and the application made by complainant was not for any specific project. It is specifically denied that a allotment was to be made within 12 months of the application. It is emphasized that the payment demanded from the customer were as per schedule.
The complainant has filed her rejoinder reaffirming her contentions in the complaint.
Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and has relied on receipt dated 28.11.2006, application form, brochure and payment plan.
OP has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Amit Pal Antil, AR of OP. Written submission on behalf of OP are also filed.
The Commission has given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and material on record. It is admitted by both the parties that complainant has made a payment of Rs.1,50,000/- towards booking of a plot/ flat in future projects of OP in Palwal, Haryana on 11.11.2006. A blank pre-formatted application form of OP filed by complainant and not denied by OP states that if an allotment is not made within 9 months of registration, the applicant will be entitled to simple interest @11% per annum. In the same application it is further stated that if the company is not in a position to make an offer of allotment within 9 months the applicant will be entitled to refund with simple interest @11% per annum from the date of payment of such advance.
It is apparent that Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid to OP by the complainant towards delivery of plot/ flat. OP has not stated in any of its pleadings that the possession of the said plot/ flat has been handed over to the complainant or the construction/ development is in progress. The complainant has not received any possession till date. The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure v/s TevorD’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held that a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of the flat allotted to him and is entitled to seeks refund of the amount paid by him along with compensation.
It is settled principle of law that OP, a developer, providing the services of developing and delivery of plots to consumers, is covered under Consumer Protection Act. OP has its office within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and hence, the complaint is maintainable. OP has not delivered the plot despite taking Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant which is a clear case of deficiency in service.
Therefore, keeping in view all the facts, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has been able to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is accordingly ordered in both the complaints that:
- OP would refund Rs. 1,50,000/- along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of payment till its realization.
- Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental stress, agony and physical inconveniences along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of uploading of order failing which it will carry an interest of @12% p.a. from the date of order to till payment.
File be consigned to record room.
