Case No.CC/531/2017

Date of Institution:-23.10.2017

Order Reserved on :-16.07.2024

           Date of Order :-18.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Jai Parkash Sharma

S/o Late F.C. Sharma,

R/o 41-A, New Gobindpura,

Gali No. 16, Delhi – 110051.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

ShriSainathInfratech Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 65, Sector-12-A,

Dwarka, New Delhi – 110078.

… Opposite Party

O R D E R

Per R. C. YADAV , MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased two residential units/plots from the OPand the OP has allotted the plot no. 133-134measuring area of 100 sq. yd. each and the project was situated at Saidham Phase 3 NH-12 Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The total sale consideration amount for the unit no. 133 was decided at Rs.1,51,560/- payable in installments. The complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs.1,51,560/- as per payment plan. The copy of the payment plan is annexed at Page 17 of the complaint. The copy of allotment letter regarding plot no. 133 is annexed at Page 15 of the complaint.
2. The  total consideration amount for the unit no. 134 was decided at Rs.1,51,550/- payable in installment by the OP. The complainant has paid totalconsideration amount of Rs.1,51,550/- as per payment plan. The copy of the payment plan is annexed at Page 21 of the complaint. The copy of allotment letter regarding plot no. 134 is annexed at Page 18 of the complaint. The complainant has requested OP to execute registered document in favour of the complainant but the OP has not executed the registered title in the name of the complainant in spite of the payment to the OP. The complainant has visited the project site but there was no construction at the site. The complainant has requested the OP for refund of his deposited amount but in vain. The complainant has prayed for the possession of the said plots and Rs.5 Lakhs for mental agony alonwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges and pass any such order which may dim fit and proper in favour of the complainant. 
3. Notice was served to OP but OP did not attend the proceedings before this Commission and OP was proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 20.12.2017. 
4. The complainant has filed Ex-parte evidence and written arguments in support of his case.
5. On 16.07.2024, the case was listed for arguments and we have heard Sh. KunalAggarwal, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.  The complainant stated that the case may be decided on the basis of material on record. Hence, the order was reserved.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and thoroughly.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased two residential units/plots from the OP and the OP has allotted the plot no. 133-134 measuring area of 100 sq. yd. each and the project was situated at Saidham Phase 3 NH-12 Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The total sale consideration amount for the unit no. 133 was decided at Rs.1,51,560/- payable in installments. The complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs.1,51,560/- as per payment plan. The  total consideration amount for the unit no. 134 was decided at Rs.1,51,550/- payable in installment by the OP. The complainant has paid total consideration amount of Rs.1,51,550/- as per payment plan. The complainant has requested OP to execute registered document in favour of the complainant but the OP has not executed the registered title in the name of the complainant in spite of the payment to the OP. The complainant has visited the project site but there was no construction at the site. The complainant has requested the OP for refund of his deposited amount but in vain.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he did  not get the possession of the plot so sought the refund of the deposited amount, but the same has not been refunded by the OPdespite repeated requests.  It is his case that this conduct of the OP amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Non-delivery of the possession of the plots on receipt of the booked amount within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.

“Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kolkata West International City Vs. DevasisRudra dated 25.03.2019 Civil Appeal 3182/2019 is an authority on this point.”

9. It is the case of the complainant that when he did not get the possession of the plots, he asked for refund the deposited amount but the same has not been refunded by the OP.   The allegations made by the complainant have gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is believed. From the facts of the case and evidence placed on the record, it is clear that receipt of the deposit amount of Rs.3,03,110/- from the complainant, the OP has neither handed over the possession of the plots nor refunded the amount to the complainant and this act apparently and clearly constitutes deficiency in service, monopolistic and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
10. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to refund Rs.3,03,110/- (Rupees Three Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred Ten) alonwth interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposited amount and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as lumpsumfor mental harassment and litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days from date of receipt of order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the entire amount with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 18.07.2024.