Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1127/2014

SH. K.K PUROHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHUBH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 1127/14

 

Shri K.K. Purohit

S/o Late Shri B.D. Purohit

R/o House No. 41, Kala Vihar Apartment

Mayur Vihar Phase-I, New Delhi                                  ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 197, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar

Phase-1, Delhi – 110 091

 

2. Kindle Developers (P) Ltd.

Plot No. 197, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar

Phase-1, Delhi – 110 091

 

3. Mr. Piyush Tiwari, MD

Kindle Developers (P) Ltd.

Plot No. 197, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar

Phase-1, Delhi – 110 091

 

4. Mr.Deewakars Sharma, Managing Partner

Kindle Developers (P) Ltd.

Plot No. 197, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar

Phase-1, Delhi – 110 091

 

5. Mr. Arun Arora, CEO

Kindle Developers (P) Ltd.

Plot No. 197, Pocket-4, Mayur Vihar

Phase-1, Delhi – 110 091

 

6. Mr. Dharmender

Radhey Krishna Property

201, Krishna Apra

Sector-18, Noida-201301, UP                                          …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 09.12.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 23.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 28.01.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

This complaint has been filed by Shri K.K. Purohit against under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant booked a plot no. SC-01/D-1 in the project ‘Shubhkamna Lords” vide receipt no. 1329 dated 20.09.2012 by paying an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the assurance of OPs that the possession of the said unit shall be handed over within a period of 18 months positively and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed in favour of applicants at the time of handing over possession of the booked unit. 

It was stated that the complainant received a letter dated 07.10.2014 from OP whereby he was called to make the balance amount.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the site of the project and got to know that the construction did not even start.  Hence, he requested OPs to cancel their booking and refund the deposited amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest.  OPs accepted the request of the complainant and refunded Rs. 6,00,000/- vide 3 cheques dated 12.11.2013, 19.12.2013 and 25.01.2014 for Rs. 2,00,000/- each. For the balance amount, the complainant wrote a letter dated 07.04.2014 after which he received Rs. 80,000/- on 22.04.2014 and Rs. 45,000/- on 02.05.2014. 

It was further stated that the complainant made several requests to OPs for refund of balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-, but they did not do so.  The complainant served a legal notice dated 30.06.2014 which was neither replied nor complied. Hence, he has prayed for directions to OPs to refund the balance amount of          Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.; Rs. 30,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony and Rs. 35,000/- towards cost of petition and legal expenses.              

3.       In the written statement filed on behalf of OPs, they have stated that there was no plot in the said project and only residential apartments were available for sale.  The complainant made a token payment with an application for allotment of flat, but failed to make further payments, hence, no allotment could ever be made.  The complainant was duly informed that in case he was unable to make further payments or requested for withdrawal, he will have to bear the administrative charges and costs incurred by OPs.

It was stated that the complainant had already fully and finally settled his account with OPs and no sum remained due and payable to the complainant by OPs.  The complainant had already surrendered the flat and therefore he was not a consumer.  Other facts have also been denied.     

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 
5.  

In defence, OPs did not file any evidence.

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record as counsel for OP did not appear to argue.  Even, they have not filed any evidence on record in support of their version in the written statement.  No doubt, they have not placed on record their evidence, but the complainant have to prove his complaint. 

          The only relief which has been claimed in the complaint has been with regard to the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- which the complainant have stated  have not been paid by OP. No doubt, he has claimed the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-, but he has not placed anything on record to show that this amount remained to be paid.  No agreement has been placed on record to substantiate his plea.

          When there is nothing on record to show that OP have not paid an amount of Rs. 75,000/- which remained to be paid, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP.  Hence, the complaint is without any merit which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President