DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92
CC No.14/2014:
In the matter of:
Sh. Sudipto Roy
S/o. Sh. Dinesh Roy
R/o. 2/212, Dakshinpuri Extn.,
Near Ambedkar Nagar Police Station,
New Delhi – 110 062
Complainant
Vs.
M/s.Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd.
(Through its MD/Director)
Regd. / Head Office:
B – 98, Abul Fazal Apartment,
22,Vasundhara Enclave,
Delhi – 110 092
Also At:
F -6, DDA Commercial Complex,
Main Drive, Vasundhara Enclave,
Delhi – 110 092
Corporate Office:
Samiah House, A -35, Sector – 63,
Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, UP – 201 305
Respondents
Date of Admission : 30/01/2014
Date of Order :16/02/2015
ORDER
Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member:
The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that the respondenthad advertised for booking in its project “Gulmohar Estate” Phase – IV, Lake City, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. Lured by the advertisement the complainant booked one BHK flat (Expendable) comprising of one Bed Room, Hall, Kitchen, Bathroom and Balcony vide No. R – 4/403/F measurind 452 Sq. feet on the First Floor in the said project for a sum of Rs.5,10.000/- under Construction Linked Plan (CLP) in June 2011. The complainant alleges to have paid Rs.3,80,001/- despite no progress in the construction work at the project site even after the lapse of three years from the date of booking. It is alleged that the respondent had assured to hand over the possession to the complainant within 12 months from the date of booking. Having lost all the hope of getting the flat the complainant sought for the refund of the deposit money of Rs.3,80,001/- with interest, etc. It is further alleged by the complainant that in reply to his legal notice dated 08/04/2013 it had admitted its liability towards him. Inspite of several requests and visits the respondent has not refunded the deposit money to the complainant. In these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for the refund of the deposit money of Rs.3,80,001/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its realization together with Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation on account of mental agony and harassment. The complainant further prayed for being compensated @ Rs.8,000/- per month for the rent paid by the complainant from June, 2012 and Rs.25,000/- as the cost of the present litigation.
Notices were issued to the respondent but none put up appearance and the case proceeded exparte against it.
Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of his complaint has not been controverted by the respondent.
Heard and perused the record.
In view of the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant on record the allegations made in the complaint shall be deemed to have been accepted by the respondent. Further, the respondent has admitted in its Letter No.SIBPL/Demand/2012-13/ST1036/36 dated 26/05/2012 the receipt of Rs.3,80,001/- from the complainant towards the cost of the flat booked by him in its project “Gulmohar Estate” Phase – IV, Lake City, Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. This is a clear case of Unfair Trade Practice where the respondent is collecting money by giving false assurances of providing a flat to the complainant within a specific time period.
It is only after the complainant had lost all hope of getting a flat that he applied to the respondent for the refund of booking amount. The offer of respondent to refund the booking amount after deducting 10% therefrom is highly unlawful despite no progress in the construction work at the project site even after the lapse of three years from the date of booking.
Taking into consideration the discussion and the observations made supra, and the facts that the respondents had used the hard earned money of the complainant to its advantage and thrust upon him unwanted litigation, we allow this complaint and direct the respondent to:
- Refund Rs.3,81,001/- the booking amount alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of its payment to the complainant ;
- Pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment meted out to him to vindicate the strength of law and it will include the cost of litigation.
The respondent shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of this order.
Copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.
(Poonam Malhotra) (N.A. Zaidi)
Member President
