Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.-83/2018
Sh. Ashish Prajaparti s/o Shri Chandu Lal
r/o RZ/E, 16, Vijay Enclave, New Delhi-110045 ...Complainant
Versus
Ramesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s LT Sehyog Buildon
C-21, Motiya Khan Double Storey, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 19.04.2018
Order Reserved on: 20.01.2023
Date of Order: 28 .02.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shahina
ORDER
1. This complaint was filed by the complainant on 19.04.2018 against the OP stating therein that the complainant contacted through pamphlet (making it public as well as showing nearest popular locations apart from its website www.Itsehyogbuildcon.in) to the OP, LT Sehyog Buildcon Builder and booked a plot measuring 450 square feets in LT City on 03.02.2014 and booking amount Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) was paid throug NEFT no. 92654 vide cheque number 004471 dated 03.03.2014 into OP’s account number 40650100001357, Bank of Baroda, Rani Jhasi Road, Delhi. It is alleged that OP claimed that ‘LT City of OP is inspired by the dreams of consumers and driven by its commitment to deliver the finest quality and set new benchmarks in the various estate. The complainant was impressed by such representation, he booked in the project LT City, Greater Noida, U.P. It is further stated that more than three years period has been passed over but OP failed to give possession of the booking plot measuring 450 Sq. ft., despite various efforts and visits made by the complainant. The Officials of the OP gave always vague and conflicting information in piecemeal on mobile number mentioned 9212335201, 9212334203, 9212334204 where several persons kept on answering and the complainant tried to ask as to the status of the floor, but the OP’s representative mislead and misguided to the complainant. The complainant finding no way, sent a legal notice dated 19.03.2018 through his counsel by registered post, legal notice returned back.
2. Alleging and pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant prayed that OP be directed to return the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and financial and physical losses, notice charges of Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 5,000/- as miscellaneous expenses.
3. The OP was issued notice on the complaint, it was returned with postal remarks, ‘Baar-baar jane par praptkarta nhi milta’. The complainant was given dasti process/ notice to serve upon the OP but he refused to accept the same, consequently as per proceeding dated 16.11.2018 OP he was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit of evidence, while the affirming the contents of complaint and of documentary records filed with complaint.
Then at the stage of arguments, complainant also filed written submissions, followed by oral submission made by Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
5. Complainant has proved pamphlet of advisement published/ circulated by the OP (at page no. 9 and 10),NEFT slip (at page no.11), photocopy of Cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-given through NEFT (at page no. 12).
6. We have heard the submissions of counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the document placed on record as well as written arguments. The record is considered, apart from the contentions of the complainant.
[Briefly, Counsel of the complainant contended that the OP assured for the allotment of the plot measuring 450 sq. ft. within a period of 12 months from the booking date and believing upon the assurance of OP, a residential plot was booked by the complainant against payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- since the complainant was in dire need of residence to accommodate and shelter his family members.] However, the OP misled and misguided the complainant through mislead advertisements, the complainant paid the amount but he was not handed over the plot booked.
There is not only deficiency of services but also unfair trade practice on the part of OP as the OP failed to deliver the plot despite receipt of booking amount, the OP also failed to return the amount on demand inclusive of legal notice. The complainant deserves return of his booking amount. He also suffered mental agony, pain and other trauma besides he was compelled to file the present complaint.
7. In view of the above, OP is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- of booking amount to the complainant, apart from damages/ compensation, which is quantified as Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Announced on this 28th February, 2023. Copy of this Order be sent/provided to the parties free of cost as per Regulations.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
