Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/699

VED PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR BUILDER PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 08.03.2018

First Appeal No: 699/2012

  No. 700/2012

  No. 702/2012

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. VedPrakash S/o Sh. HoshiyarSinghi

R/o 1311 A/10, Sudama Nagar,

Opp. Mukhi Hospital, Sonepat.

 

Smt Rajesh ChaudharyW/o Sh. Jai Singh

R/o A-8, Ordnance Apartments,

H-Block, VikasPuri,

New Delhi-110018

 

Jai Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh

R/o A-8, Ordnance Apartments,

H-Block, VikasPuri,

New Delhi-110018                                                     ……Appellants

 

 

Versus

 

Senior Builders Pvt. Ltd.

!/1, Shanti Niketan,

New Delhi-110021.                                 ……Respondent

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

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

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

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.             By way of this common order three appeals bearing No. FA-699/12, FA-700/12 and FA-702/12 shall be disposed of. Facts in all these complaints and the defence raised by the respondent/ OP are the same.
2.             In their separate complaints before the District Forum, complainants Sh.VedPrakash, Sh. Jai Singh and Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary submitted that they booked a plot each with Senior Builders Pvt. Ltd.  (OP) 1/1 Shanti Niketan, New Delhi-110021 and deposited an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- each on 07.04.2005 against receipt. OP had represented to them that it was promoting house schemes. It would allot plots for residence at Sonipat. OP also represented that it had obtained necessary sanctions from the competent authorities. Upon this assurance, the complainants paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,50,000/- each. OP admittedly failed to launch the project. It issued a letter dated 17.01.2006 informing the complainants that the necessary formalities were nearing completion and the plots would be allotted shortly. Grievance of the complainants was that the OP failed to deliver possession of the plot. OP also failed to refund the amounts deposited by them despite several letters and reminders. Complainants filed separate complaints in the District Forum praying for refund of the amounts deposited alongwith interest @18% p.a. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3.        Defence raised by the OP was that the complainants had booked the plots for re-selling them on higher rates. In its written versions OP stated that due to certainbeaurocratic    problems, the project got delayed. At another place it is stated that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the project got delayed. OP stated that he was trying to launch the project in near future.
4.         Ld. District Forum observed that no agreement was entered into between the parties. Advance registration form contained the terms and conditions. Ld. District Forum further observed that the OP did not either deliver the plot or refund the money. Ld. District Forum also observed that the Advance Registration Form did not contain in it any clause relating to forfeiture of the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs. For this reason, Ld. District Forum directed the OP to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs each to these complainants alongwith the interest @8% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. No compensation was awarded.
5.         In their appeals Appellant/complainants submitted that the Ld. District Forum erred in not awardingcompensation and interest @18% p.a.Hon’ble Forum failed to acknowledge the pain and suffering suffered by them.
6.      Respondent/OP failed to put in appearance despite service of notice. He was proceeded against ex-parte.
7.         A careful perusal of the written version filed by the OP in the District Forum shows that the OP admittedthat he failed to get land from the owners. Even license to promote a house building project was not granted. Advance registration form issued on 07.04.2005 stated that the allotment of plot would be made within six months.
8.          Plea of the OP is that the complainants wanted to make profits, by allotment of plots. Plea not supported by any material.
9.          OP collected money from the gullible buyers even when he had not obtained any license to launch any housing project. Not even the land had been purchased. Ld. District Forum did not give any reason for holding that the complainants were not entitled to the amount of compensation or interest on the amount deposited with effect from the date of its deposit. OP simply defrauded its customers. Complainants/ Appellant are thus entitled to:

 

1. refund of the amount of Rs.3.5 lakhs alongwith the interest @18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till the date of its realisation.
2. Complainants have been to a lot of inconvenience, harassment, sadness, frustration and mental agony. For this, they are entitled to compensation. Accordingly Compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded in favour of the complainants.

 

      The abovesaid payments shall be made by the OP to the complainants within a period of 30 days from today failing which the amount shall carry interest @24% p.a. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.

        Files be sent to records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)