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.:11/2019

Sh. Ram Avtar, S/o Bachi Lal

Residence At I-407/12, Gali No.12

Hari Nagar Extension, Badapur

Jaitpur, South Delhi-110044.                                         …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. Prem Kumar

Residence At I-195/11, Gali No.11, Hari Nagar

Extension, Badarpur, Jaitpur, South Delhi-110044.

2. Hemraj, Proprietor of M/s Dream Land Real Consultants

Office at D-6, Nala Road, Saurabh Vihar

Jaitpur, Badapur, South Delhi-110044

Residence at –H.No.M-11, Saurabh Vihar

Jaitpur, Badarpur, Delhi

3. Ravi Vajpai, Partner, M/s JSRM Developers

CMD, JSRM Developer

Regd Office at – Shop No.308, 3^rd Floor, US Complex

Jasola Apollo, New Delhi-110076.

Also at: 16/6, First Floor, Shyam baba, main market

Mathura Road, old Faridabad-121002.

Also at: H.No.A-2652, Second Floor

Near NHPC metro, Green field colony

4. Lalita Vajpai, Partner, M/s JSRM Developers,

CMD, JSRM Developer

Regd Office at – Shop No.308, 3^rd Floor, US Complex

Jasola Apollo, New Delhi-110076.

Also at: H.No.A-2652, Second Floor

Near NHPC metro, Green field colony

Faridabad-121010                                                     …..RESPONDENTS

          Date of Institution-18.01.2019

          Date of Order-09.08.2024

  O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on non-delivery of possession of plot.

2. Facts as stated in complaint are that the complainant was approached by OP-1 in August, 2014 and was introduced to OP-2, Sh. Hemraj, proprietor of M/s Dream Land Real Consultant.  It is alleged that the OP-2 was introduced as a high profile property broker having good relation with M/s JSRM Developers, OP-3 and OP-4.

3. It is alleged that partners of JSRM Developers, OP-3 & OP-4 induced the complainant to book a plot @ Rs.7.5 lacs for plot admeasuring 100 sq. yards for the Project namely Magadh Enclave 2 , Sector-144, Noida (UP) of M/s JSRM Developers.  The complainant made the following payments-

4. It is further alleged that complainant’s son took a loan from Bajaj Finance at high rate of interest to make payment.  The complainant contacted OP time and again for the registry, mutation and possession of the plot but to no avail.  The complainant sent a legal notice and made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police regarding non-delivery of possession.

5.  The complainant prays for refund of Rs.8,07,000/- with interest @18%, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.50,000/- towards costs.

6. OP-1 in its reply denied all the allegations by the complainant.  OP-1 clarified that the complainant approached OP-1 for introduction to OP-2.

OP-1 further clarifies that he is a petty street vendor and not involved in any property dealing.OP-1 submits that he is not party to any agreement between the complainant and other OPs.

7. Notice was issued but none appeared for OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4.  OP-3 and OP-4 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.05.2019.  OP-2 was proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.08.2019.

8. Complainant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.

9. Complainant has filed its evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-

1. Copy of Aadhar Card is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/1.
2. Copy of brochure of project is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/2.
3. Copy of loan papers is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/3.
4. Copy of entire payment receipts is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/4.
5. Copy of emails and letter is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/5-7
6. Copy of  legal notice alongwith postal receipt is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/8
7. Copy of  reply is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/9
8. Copy of original envelope is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/10.
9. Copy of complaint is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/11.
10. Copy of bank statements is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/12.
11. Copy of proof of payment is exhibited as EXHIBIT CW-1/13.

10.  OP-1 has filed evidence by way of affidavit, however no document is exhibited.

11.  The Commission has considered the material and documents on record.  The complainant has filed receipt from JSRM Developers which are as follows –

12. The complainant sent a complaint to OP-4 vide email dated 03.12.2018, a legal notice dated 17.12.2018, a complaint to OP-4 dated 16.10.2019.  The complainant has also filed his bank statement.

13.  It is clear that the complainant has paid Rs.8,07,000/- to OP and has not received possession till date.  OP has failed to appear to rebut this contention.  The Apex Court in Fortune Infrastructure V/s Trevor D’lima (2018) 5 SCC 442 has held a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of flat allotted to him and is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid by him alongwith compensation.

14. Hence we find OP-3 and OP-4 guilty of deficiency in service in not giving the possession of flat and direct OP-3 & 4 jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.8,07,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment till realization alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

15. Order to be complied within 30 days. Order to be uploaded and file be consigned to record room.