Delhi

StateCommission

CC/12/178

MAMTA DUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K. ARORA(CHAIRMAN) SUPERTECH LTD. & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :  03.03.2015

Complaint Case No.178/2012

     

 

Ms. Mamta Dubey

 

W/o Sh. Naveen Chandra Dubey

R/o B-10A/90-B, Udaygiri-1

Sector-34

Noida                                                         ....Complainant    

                                                      

VERSUS

1. Sh. R.K.Arora (Chairman & CMD)

(SUPERTECH LTD.)

2. Sh. Mohit Arora (Director)

(SUPERTECH LTD.)

3. Sh. Arun Kapoor

Chief Marketing Officer

SUPERTECH LTD.

B-27-28, Sector-58, Noida-201301                …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Judgment

1.         Facts in brief of the present complaint are that the complainant Ms. Mamta Dubey got booked a flat in a project of M/s Supertech Ltd. (in short the OP) known as Cape town, Plot No. GH-1 in Sector 74, Noida, (Uttar Pradesh). Total price of the flat was Rs. 46,38,058.00/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1 Lac on 23.10.2010. ‘Flat Buyers Agreement’ dt. 14.12.2010 was executed between the parties. Complainant admits having received the letters of demand dt. 16.11.2010, 28.12.2010, 01.02.2011, 04.07.2011 and 06.09.2011 from the OP. Her submission is that she did not make any payment for the reason that a dispute between the farmers and the OP was pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad. Next submission of the complainant is that she received a letter dt. 19.12.2011 from the OP informing her of the cancellation of her flat due to non payment of the dues. She visited the office of the OP on 26.12.2011 where she met the Chief Marketing Officer of the OP named Sh. Arun Kapoor. The complainant was allegedly threatened by Sh. Arun Kapoor. Next contention of the complainant is that she did not receive letters dt. 05.05.2011, 05.06.2011 and 12.07.2011. The OP however, received the payment of Rs. 2 Lac from her on 30.08.2011. She sent a legal notice dt. 21.01.2012 which was not replied to.
2.         On the basis of the abovesaid facts, the complainant has contended that the OP was ‘deficient in service’. She was put to embarrassment, harassment and mental agony. Complainant has prayed for restoration of the booking of her flat and accepting the balance payment from her without interest. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 Lac and litigation charges of Rs. 01,00,000/- have also been prayed for.
3.         OP in its defence filed written version stating that the complainant failed to make the payment of Rs. 24,36,455/- as per letter of demand dt. 06.09.2011. The said letter was admittedly received by the complainant. Complainant is not entitled to get benefit of her own wrong. Next submission of the OP is that he is not liable to pay the compensation as flat was rightly cancelled for non payment of dues.
4.         Parties have placed on record their affidavits towards evidence, reiterating the abovesaid submissions. Written arguments have also been filed by the parties. On behalf of the complainant Ld. Counsel Sh. Naveen Chander Dubey has addressed the arguments whereas on behalf of the OP Sh. Piyush Aggarwal has argued the matter.
5.         Admittedly the ‘flat buyers agreement’ dt. 14.12.2010 was entered into between the parties. As per payment schedule appearing at page 2 of the agreement, complainant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 04,63,806/- to the OP on 28.09.2010, being 10% of the total price, 40% of the price of the flat amounting to Rs. 18,55,224/- was required to be paid by the complainant on or before 27.11.2010. Admittedly, prior to the institution of the present complaint only an amount of Rs. 3 Lac in all stood paid by the complainant. It is also an admitted case of the complainant that she received the letters of demand dt. 28.12.2010, 01.02.2011, 04.07.2011 and 06.09.2011. It does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to contend that she did not make the aforesaid payments for a dispute between the farmers and the OP was pending in a Court of Law. Complainant had entered into a ‘flat buyers agreement’ with her eyes wide open. She failed to pay even 10% of the total consideration of the flat in a span of four years. She cannot allege that the OP was ‘deficient in service’. The boot is rather on the other leg.
6.         Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Kumar Shahi V/s Ghaziabad Development Authority (2000) 4 SCC 120 held that the complainant in the said case could not deny his liability to pay the balance along with penal interest. No case of unfair trade practice was made out against the respondent authority in that case. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present complaint is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.
7.         A copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter file be sent to Records.