DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 333/12

In the matter of:

N.K. Sharma, President

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant thereby alleging that on 21-4-15 he booked a plot of 600 sq. yd. in a project by the name Sai Nagar, launched by OP, in Jaipur, on the printed format of OP. As per OP the project was on 100 ft. wide road at 24 km distance from Jaipur Bus Stand Jaipur Tonk Road near Chaksu (Rajasthan). He paid Rs. 60,000/- on booking, to the OP. Thereafter, Rs. 30,000/- on 30-6-11, Rs. 25,000/- on 5-11-11, Rs. 30,000/- on 7-11-11, Rs. 30,000/- on 01-02-12, total being Rs. 1,75,000/- was paid by him to the OP. When after waiting almost 2 years, on 1-5-12 the complainant visited the site he was shocked to see that the OP has surreptitiously changed the location of project Sai Nagar to a far more place by a different name as Sai Bhumi. Plot offered to the complainant was not as per specifications in the main site plan, given at the time of booking. The exact distance of the project was more than 60 km and the same was not located in Jaipur but actually in Tonk District (Rajasthan). The project was not adjacent to 100 ft wide road but on approximately 15 to 20 ft. wide road. OP had not even obtained approval for launching the project from the concerned local authorities. Therefore, complainant decided not to pay further installment and to withdraw from project, interalia on the ground that OP has failed to fulfil its commitment to provide the possession of plot within 2 years. On 15-5-12 complainant asked the OP as to why the location of project was changed.  But OP paid no heed and advised him to opt for cancellation. Finding no way out complainant agreed to cancel the booking. Cancellation request was required by OP on its printed format containing several terms & conditions. The terms and condition being against the interest of complainant, he refused to fill the said form. Thereafter, every possible attempt to persuade the OP to refund his money failed. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest thereon @18% p.a. from the date of payment. Complainant has also prayed for grant of compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. Notice was duly served on OP but nobody appeared on its behalf and on 27-11-12 OP was proceeded against Ex-parte. Complainant filed Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit alongwith all relevant documents.
3. Heard and Perused the record.
4. ANNEXURE-A1 is advertisement offering plots of different areas in the project namely Sai Nagar, launched by OP. It shows that plots were offered on 24 months interest free EMIs. Project was interalia at 35 minutes drive from Bus stand Jaipur. ANNEXURE-A2 is a proposed site plan of the project namely Sai Nagar located at 100 ft wide road. ANNEXURE-A3 is registration form, it shows that complainant booked plot of 600 sq yds in Sai Nagar project on 21.04.2010 by depositing Rs. 60,000/- which is duly acknowledged by OP vide its receipt being ANNEXURE-A4, the same day. ANNEXURE-A5 to A-10 are receipts of payments issued by OP on 01.05.2010, 30.06.2011, 05.11.2011, 07.11.2011 and 01.02.2012 of total amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- received from complainant in said project.
5. All these documents support the allegations of complainant of, booking a plot in the said project of OP, making payment to the OP for continuous period of about two years, offer of OP to pay installments in 24 EMIs. But nowhere it is specifically stated that possession was to be given in 24 months. Further, as per complainant’s own statement he had to pay total cost of the plot of 600 sq. Yds @666/- per sq yard i.e. Rs. 3,99,600/-. But total amount as shown paid by the complainant is Rs. 1,75,000/- only. Thus, though complainant has made payment for almost two years he was not given possession of the plot in two years.
6. In complaint complainant itself states that “The complainant was shocked to see that the Opposite Party has surreptitiously changed location of the project Sai Nagar to a far more place and also changed the name of the said project i.e. Sai Nagar to Sai Bhumi.”   But there is no justification on behalf of the complainant as to why he has not made full payment of plot in 2 years. Allegations of OP starting another project at different site are also not supported by any document. Only document placed on record is a photo of a vacant plot having board of Sai Nath Group. This board also does not show any address thereon.
7. Now only question remains as to whether plot in question was ready for possession to the complainant or not ? If so, why it was not so offered to the complainant. To answer in query, OP inspite of service did not, appear and file its reply. There is also no document to show that there was any demand from the side of OP. Thus, the allegations, of the complainant, that OP did not develop the project in question and provided plot within agreed period of 24 months, remains uncontroverted. Hence, this allegation is deemed to be proved.
8. Accordingly we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to refund to the complainant the deposited amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- with interest thereon @12% p.a. from the dates of their respective payments. But as complainant was itself defaulter in payments of entire cost within 24 months no compensation for harassment can be granted. We grant only Rs. 5,500/- against litigation cost.
9. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on: - 10-11-2015