Delhi

East Delhi

CC/853/2014

NIKLAT FATMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMIAH INTERNATIONAL - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  853/14

 

Mrs. Nikhat Fatima

W/o Mr. Tanvir Hasnain

R/o E-208, Parsavnath Prestige

Sector 93A, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida                             ….Complainant

Vs.

M/s. Samiah International Builders (P) Ltd.

Office at: B-98, Abul Fazal Apartments

 Vasundhara Enclave

Delhi – 110 096                                                                              ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution:20.10.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 12.09.2017

Judgment Passed on: 13.09.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Smt. Nikhat Fatima has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. Samiah International Builders (P) Ltd. (OP).    

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Nikhat Fatima booked a plot admeasuring 115 sq. yards (herein after referred to as the said plot/property) with OP in the Residential Township ‘Samiah’ at Bulandshahar Road, NH-24, Hapur, UP on 28.09.2007.  As per the  Memorandum of Undertaking dated 01.10.2017, OP assured the complainant a return on investment (ROI) equivalent to 50% p.a. to the basic sale price of the property i.e. Rs. 6,90,000/-, after a year of the complete payment.  As per MOU, complainant made the complete payment of Rs. 4,60,000/- to OP and requested to hand over the possession of the plot.  The complainant was shocked to know that the amount paid by her would not be refunded and the proposed option could not be availed by her. 

            A legal notice dated 07.06.2013 was issued, which was returned with the remarks that guard has not allowed to go inside.  After the notice, OP approached the complainant and the parties exchanged emails, but nothing has been done.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to handover the possession of the said plot; pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of mental torture, pain, agony and deficiency of service and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       In the reply, OP have stated that the complainant booked the plot for the commercial purpose, therefore, she was not a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act; she did not comply the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the MOU; this forum has no jurisdiction to resolve this dispute; there is no deficiency on the part of OP as the complainant did not deposit the money as per terms and conditions of the agreement and MOU and the affidavit filed in support of the complaint by the complainant was defective.  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.       In support of its case, complainant have examined herself on affidavit and have narrated the facts, stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited documents such as applicant profile (Ex.CW1/1), Memorandum of Understanding (Ex.CW1/2), copy of receipt (Ex.CW1/3), legal notice dated 07.06.2013 (Ex.CW1/4) and copy of emails (Ex.CW1/5). 

          Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd. have examined         Shri Jamil A. Khan, Chief Managing Director of OP, who have also deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts, stated in the WS. 

5.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and have perused the material placed on record as none has appeared on behalf of OP to argue.  Though counsel for OP did not appear to argue, but the plea which have been taken in the WS and the evidence has been that there was no deficiency on the part of OP and the complainant did not deposit the money as per terms and conditions of the agreement. 

            On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that by not adhering to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and inspite of having paid an amount of Rs. 4,60,000/-, as demanded, the OP have failed to deliver the possession within the stipulated time.  Thus, he has stated that there was deficiency on the part of OP.    

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant and the plea taken by OP in their WS as well as evidence, a look has to be made to the testimony of complainant and the documents placed on record.  If a look is made to the application, it has been stated in the application that the total cost of the plot has been Rs. 4,60,000/-.  The MOU also shows that OP have received 100% payment amounting to Rs. 4,60,000/- upto 01.10.2007.  Further this MOU shows that the return on investment will commence from the date of 100% payment i.e. from 01.10.2007.  It also shows that after one year of paying the basic price, buyer can return the property.  It means that the buyer/complainant was given an option to return back the property after one year i.e. 01.10.2008.  From this, it can be gathered that the possession of plot was to be given within one year of paying the basic price.  The fact that no possession has been given to the complainant after getting the total payment of Rs. 4,60,000/-, even after a period of above 6 years, when the complainant instituted the complaint in the year 2014, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony for which she has to be compensated.  When the complainant have paid the amount as per the MOU and have not been given the possession, she was entitled for the same. 

            In view of the above, we order that complainant be handed over the possession of 115 sq. yards plot in the Residential Township ‘Samiah’ at Bulandshahar Road, NH-24, Hapur, UP within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of order.  If the possession is not given within the stipulated period, M/s. Samiah International Builders (P) Ltd. shall refund the amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from November, 2007.  They are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation on account of mental pain and suffering.  This includes the cost of litigation also. 

            The order be complied within a period of 60 days. If not complied, amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall also carry 9% interest from the date of order.   

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President