Delhi

East Delhi

CC/946/2012

MAYA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHOURYA TOWER - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No.946/ 2012:

 

In the matter of:

Smt. Maya Devi Sharma

R/o. 166 B, Mandawali, Faizalpur,

Delhi – 110 092

Complainant

                          Vs

1. The Manager

M/s. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office:

78 – B, Sector - II, Group II,

DDA Flats, Kondli Gharoli,

Mayur Vihar Ph – III,

Delhi – 110 096

 

2. M/. Shouryapuram - STPL

Corp. Off.:

B-111, Sector-5,Noida, G.B. Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh – 201 301

Also At:

D – 44, Sector – 6, Noida – 201 301

 

3. Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd.

A – 1, Sector – 4, Noida – 201 301 (U.P.)

Respondents

 

Date of Admission : 30/11/2012

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 16/11/2015

 

 

ORDER

 

N.A.ZAIDI PRESIDENT

The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint is that on 08/10/2005 one Ms.Rama Aggarwal had booked a plot with No. G – 1313, measuring 175 sq.yds (approximately) with the respondent in Shourya City, N.H. 24, Ghaziabad @ Rs.7,205/- per sq.yd.  The total cost of the said plot was Rs.12,60,875/-.  She had paid Rs.3,00,000/- on 08/10/2005 as the initial booking amount and Rs.1,76,306.25 on 03/04/2006 as the next instalment and receipts were issued to her by the respondent.  It is alleged that on 21/04/2006 she transferred her interest in the said plot to the complainant after receiving the due consideration and the complainant, thus, became the sole owner of the said plot and payments made by Ms. Rama Aggarwal till 21/04/2006 were considered as payments by the complainant.  In the letter dated 16/01/2007 a demand of Rs.1,78,586.25/- was raised towards initial allotment and the said amount was paid through three cheques dated 25/03/2007, 20/03/2007 and 20/03/2007 respectively and a receipt dated 14/03/2007 was issued by the respondent acknowledging the receipt of the said payment. Thus, in all the complainant alleges to have paid Rs.6,54,893/- towards the cost of the said plot.  A provisional allotment letter was issued in favour of the complainant.  It is further alleged by the complainant that as per the terms of the contract between the parties the respondent was to handover the possession of the said plot to the complainant by the year 2009.  On 07/08/12 the complainant alleges to have received a Demand Letter asking the complainant to pay Rs.12,19,204/- towards the cost of the said plot stated in the said letter to be Rs.22,23,625/-.  In another letter dated 25/08/2012 received by the complainant from the respondent, the cost of the said plot is mentioned as Rs.23,42,621/- which is strict contradiction to the letter dated 07/08/2012. The complainant has objected the illegal demands so raised towards the cost of the said flat.  It is also alleged that despite repeated requests for the delivery of possession of the said plot the respondent has failed to meet the deadline.  Even Legal Notice dated 08/10/2012 of the complainant for the delivery of possession of the said plot to her was of no consequence.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the respondent to handover the possession of the aforesaid plot to her and to withdraw their Demand Letter dated 07/08/2012, to accept Rs.6,05,983/- as the balance payment towards the cost of the plot, with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as the cost of this litigation.

The respondents appeared in response to the notices issued to them and jointly filed their written version wherein they have raised the pleas of territorial jurisdiction and limitation.  It is submitted that the respondent  has started handing over the possession w.e.f.01/02/2012.  It is contended by the respondent that the complainant is herself a defaulter as she has failed to pay the balance consideration in respect of the booked plot.  Rest of the allegations have been denied.

Rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent filed by the complainant to rebut the contentions raised by the respondent. Evidence by way of Affidavit filed by both the complainant and on behalf of the respondents in support of their respective cases. 

            Heard and perused the record.

The respondent in their written statement have taken the plea of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the project in question is located in NOIDA and their office is also in NOIDA and no part of cause of action has arisen in New Delhi. The complainant in the complaint pointed out that it is clear from the documents filed by the Respondent on record and the documents filed by the complainant that the respondent have their office located in Kondli Mayur Vihar Phase-3, New Delhi. All the communication which has been issued to Smt. Rama Aggrawal from whom the complainant has bought this Flat and recognized by the respondent by executing the letter dated 21/03/06 from their office at Kondli Mayur Vihar Delhi, which was witnessed by Sonam Estate of Barakhamba Road New Delhi. This document which has been given right to the complainant of the Flat was executed in Delhi. The allotment letter issued by the Respondent was also communicated to the complainant at her Mandwali, Faizalpur Delhi Address. The letter of demand on 07/08/2012 was also communicated to the complainant at Delhi which has given the complainant cause of action to initiate these proceedings. As the demand which has been raised is contrary to the initial contract which the respondent have entered with the initial allottee the total cost was Rs.12,60,775/-. None they are claiming, the balance amount of Rs.12,19,204 when the complainant have already deposited Rs.6,54,893/-. In these circumstances the plea raised by the Respondent is not tenable in law and accordingly rejected.

            The complainant in this case has come up with the specific allegation that the respondent was to handover the possession to the complainant by year 2009 but repeated representation the possession was not handedover. The respondent on the contrary have taken up the plea that the project in question was duly approved by the competent authority and it is because of complainant failure to pay the possession could not be handedover. In para-9 it has been mentioned by the respondent that the company has already started executing the registered sale deed with effect from February 2012. They have not denied that they were not under obligation to handover the possession by 2009. They have admitted in para-8 of the written statement that this Township was approved by Ghaziabad Development Authority on 29/11/2010. These two facts are sufficient to establish that the respondent has taken the deposit from the complainant and from other persons when the project was not approved by the competent authority.  This is a clearly case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.      

The respondent has taken the plea of limitation and have pleaded that this booking was made in 2006 and complaint could have at best been filed in the year 2008. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the respondent their letter dated 07/08.2012 is sufficient to rebut their contention regarding the bar of limitation. The respondent has not taken the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction in their pleadings. The complainant case is for the withdrawal of the demand letter dated 07/08/2012 and after adjusting the amount deposited by the complainant for possession of the plot and compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. If the above amount is taken together then it breaches the 20 lakhs. The question regarding the adjustment of Rs.6,5,983/- cannot be ignored. The demand of Rs.12,19,204/-  since not tenable in law. The relief claimed is taken to be below Rs.20 lacs, further it may not be fair to deny the relief on technical ground. We allow this complaint. The respondent is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant after accepting the balance amount and adjusting the amount of Rs.6,5,983/-. If the respondent is not in position to handover the possession of the plot within 30 days from the date of this order they shall refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.6,54,893/- within 30 days. In that case complainant shall be entitled for 9% interest on the deposited amount from the date of filing of the complaint, till it is paid.

Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

 

 

 

 (Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                 (N.A. Zaidi)

          Member                                                                                                          President