Haryana

StateCommission

A/866/2016

M2M BUILDTECH PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM MURTI DALAL - Opp.Party(s)

AAKASH JUNEJA

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      866 of 2016

Date of Institution:     26.09.2016

Date of Decision :      24.10.2016

 

1.      M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd, 345, Tower B, Spaze Edge Sector 27, Sihna Road, Gurgaon 122003, through its Principle Officer/Authorized Signatory/Director.

2.      M/s M2M Buildtech (P) Ltd, Branch Office at Kheri Sadh on Delhi Rohtak Main Road, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak through its Principal Officer.

          Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Ram Murti Dalal wife of Sh. Amarjit Singh Dalal, resident of House No.1103, Sector 1, Rohtak.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.   

                                                                            

Present:     Shri Aakash Juneja, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          The instant appeal has been filed by M2M Buildtech (P) Limited-opposite parties (for short, ‘builder’) against the order dated June 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Ram Murti Dalal-complainant was allowed.   The builder was directed to refund Rs.5,00,000- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization and Rs.3500/- litigation expenses to the complainant. 

2.      The complainant booked a flat at Kheri Sadh, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak with the builder.  He paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the builder.  The builder issued receipt (Exhibit C-4) to the complainant.  The builder failed to start the project.  The complainant requested the builder to refund the deposited amount but to no avail.  He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The builder, in its written version, denied the averments of the complainant. 

4.      The only contention raised by learned counsel for the builder is that no agreement was executed between the parties. The complainant neither booked any flat nor paid any amount to the builder.

5.      This Commission does not concur with the submission of learned counsel for the builder because the builder itself has issued receipt (Exhibit C-4) in favour of the complainant.  The complainant has booked a flat with the builder in the year 2012.  The builder did not start the project despite collecting money from the public. It needs no special emphasis to state that the builder has to respect the contractual commitment. It has to gain trust of the people who dream of houses and can repose faith in him. Not for nothing, it has been said, "the foundation of any economy is faith and if faith is lost, everything is lost".  Thus, the order under challenge requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 24.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

(UK)