Delhi

StateCommission

A/12/14

SANJEEV KR. TYAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAI UNIVERSITY & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

                                                             Date of Decision: 05.04.2019

 

First Appeal No. 14/2012

 

(Arising out of the order dated 09.08.2018 passed in complaint case No. 352/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Ajay Arora

S/o Sh. K L Arora

R/o C-1008, L.I.G.Flat

Loni Road, Delhi-110093                              …….Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s  Yadu Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Sh. Kamal Kumar

Branch Office: 28-B, SFS Flats

Pocket-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III

Delhi-110096

 

Also at:

 

M/s Yadu Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director Sh. Kamal Kumar

Registered Off.: 11/24, Sector-3

Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.           .........Respondent

                                                                  

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                  -                  PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                   -                  MEMBER

 

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

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                      Yes

 

Justice Veena Birbal    -        President

 

ORDER

1. In the present appeal challenge is made to order dated 08.10.2013 passed by Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Enclave Delhi whereby Complaint Case No. 494/2012 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts are that a complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed before Ld. District Forum with the allegations that the father of appellant/complainant in order to have a flat for his son i.e. appellant/complainant had contacted a property dealer, namely, Sh. Neeraj Choudhary in February 2012 and asked for purchase of a flat measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing no. C-275 Shalimar Garden Extn. II 2^ND Floor, Sahibabad, GZB UP with roof rights. It is stated that as per the property agent, the owner of the said flat was respondent/OP. A meeting was arranged with the parties. Appellant/complainant had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- and the deal was finalized for Rs. 55,00,000/-. An Agreement to Sell dated 04.03.2012 was executed and it was also agreed that the loan was also to be arranged by respondent/OP. It was alleged that the loan was not finalized due to which deal was not materialized. It was alleged that the respondent/OP did not return Rs. 4,00,000/-. Accordingly a complaint was filed for return of earnest money with interest.
3. Respondent/OP did not file written statement before Ld. District Forum. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.
4. Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing that it was never agreed between the parties that facility of loan was to be arranged by respondent/OP. It was held by Ld. District Forum that terms of ‘Agreement to Sell’ nowhere cast liability upon respondent/OP for arranging a loan for complainant as such no deficiency can be attributed to respondent/OP. It was further held since there was an ‘Agreement to Sell’ between the parties, the jurisdiction was with Civil Court under the specific relief Act to get it enforced through the court of law.
5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
6. No one has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant despite awaiting. Perusal of order sheet shows that even for the past two dates of hearing also none had appeared on behalf of appellant. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent/OP also.
7. We have gone through the grounds of appeal. The main ground of challenge is that loan was to be arranged by respondent/OP as such there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP. While going through the ‘Agreement to Sell’, we don’t find parties agreed so as is alleged. On going through the ‘Agreement to Sell’ we find that present is a case of non-performance of its obligation by a vendor under an ‘Agreement to Sell’ for which appellant/complainant has to file a Civil Suit either for specific performance of the agreement to sell or any other alternative relief. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant/complainant shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before a competent court in accordance with law.
8.         A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also to the District Forum, New Delhi. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member