BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,

ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006

No. DF(Central)/2015/                                                        Dated:

Complaint Case No. 5 of 2015                        

Smt. Madhu

E-127/1, Shastri Nagar

Near P .N.B. Bank

DELHI – 110 052.                                                          Complainant

Versus

Sh. Tilak Raj

S/o Sh. Jama Prsad

R/o 4643/50, Reghar Pura

Karol Bagh

NEW DELHI – 110 05                                                   Opposite Parties

ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          The complainants is the owner of fourth floor of the property No. 6742/10, Gali No. 1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.  It is alleged by the complainant that being interested in the construction of the above said property she had approached the OP who is engaged in the business of construction and had entered into an collaboration agreement dated 11.7.2013 with him. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance in terms of collaboration agreement to the OP .  It is further alleged by the complainant that despite receiving the advance money of Rs.50,000/- OP had failed to commence the construction on the aforesaid property. The complainant served a legal notice to the OP for commencing the construction or refunding the advance money.  But despite service of the legal notice OP neither constructed the property nor refund Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant as can advance to the OP .  Hence this complaint.

     The notice of the complaint was sent to the OP by registered post.  The registered letter was not received back un-served.  Hence, it was presumed that notice had been delivered to the OP .  The OP did not put appearance on 14.4.2015 and he was awaited till next date of hearing i.e. 21.5.2015.  Since, none appeared for the OP on 21.5.2015 then the OP was proceeded exparte.

     The complainant has filed evidence by way of his affidavit, wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.

     We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.

     Before filing the complaint, the complainant had served a demand notice on the OP .  The OP had failed to comply with or refute the allegation levelled in the notice.  In number of cases, courts have held that where serious allegations are made against a noticee in a notice and the allegations are not refute and the notice is simply ignored a presumption may be drawn that the allegation made in the notice are true.  (See Kalyu Ram V/s Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis travel v/s Sumit Kalra and another 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB).

     The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in favours of the complainant that the contents of the notice/complaint are true.  From the un-rebutted testimony of the complainant we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.

     We allow the complaint with the following direction to the OP to comply with:-

1.To refund a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of agreement i.e. 10.7.2013.

2.To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) as a cost of litigation.

          The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

          Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

     (NIPUR CHANDNA)   (DR. VIKRAM DABAS)       (RAKESH KAPOOR)                                   MEMBER                              MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT