Delhi

StateCommission

CC/13/62

ANIL KR CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUPERTECH LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision:12.03.2018

 

 

Complaint Case No.62/2013

 

 

Shri Rishi Kumar Kakkar,

R/o House No.132, PLA,

Hisar.

                                                              …Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1. Adel Landmark Limited

Formerly known as Era Landmakrs Ltd.,

(Through its Director)

39, Ground Floor, Friends Colony (West)

New Delhi -110065.

 

2. Adel Landmark Limited

Formerly known as Era Landmakrs Ltd.,

(Through its Director)

B-24, Sector -3,

Noida – 201301 (UP)

                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? ‘

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the ‘Act’) is filed by the complainant Shri Rishi Kumar Kakkar stating therein that he had booked a flat with the OP after paying Rs.5,50,000/- as booking amount. The OP had allotted a residential Unit bearing No. CSM/103/T-9/0203 admeasuring 2098 sq. ft. vide allotment letter dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure C-1), situated in Phase -II, Sector 103, Gurgaon. The complainant had made further payments to OP i.e. in all the complainant paid Rs.16,14,518/- from 22.06.2011 to 10.03.2012 vide receipts which are annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-2 (Colly). It is alleged the OP charged a sum of Rs.40,518/- as service tax and an amount of Rs.2,56,500/- on account of difference in the areas of the flat in question, which was also paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 10.03.2012, annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-3 filed. It is alleged that the complainant kept on enquiring from the OP about the fate of the project, its development as to when the project was likely to be completed. The total cost of the flat was Rs.62,94,000/-. It is alleged that at the time of allotment, the complainant was assured that all work will be carried out in accordance with the plan/specification and it was also informed that the work would be completed by the year 2014. It is alleged that despite assurance given by OP, the construction was not started and rather on making visits at the site, the complainant came to know that the tower wherein the complainant was allotted the flat has been sold to M/s. Ansal Real Estates. Thereafter, the complainant approached number of times in the office of the OP but was not entertained. It is alleged that the complainant also gave legal notice dated 04.01.2014 to the OP, however, no reply was given. Thereafter, a reminder dated 15.04.2014 was also sent to the OP. It is alleged that in the month of July 2014 the complainant received a letter No.211 dated 29.07.2014 from the OP wherein he was informed that due to unavoidable reasons and prolonged delay it will not be able to continue with the booking and offered the complainant to get refund of his amount alongwith interest or to shift to some other existing and licensed project in Gurgaon and was asked to send his consent. The complainant did not give consent as OP wanted the complainant to surrender the original documents and thereafter the OP would issue post dated cheques from February 2015 as per his own terms and condition. It is alleged that the same offer was repeated by the OP vide letter No.213 dated 20.08.2014 as well as 26.08.2014. The aforesaid letters are annexed with the complaint as Annexure C-7 and C-8.
2. It is alleged that on 28.08.2014 complainant had sent letter to the OP asking for possession of the flat which the OP had promised to offer in July 2014 after completion of development work and if the OP was not in a position to give flat in that event the amount be refunded with 20% PA. It is alleged that the OP did not respond to the said letter. It is stated that OP has taken money from the complainant and has utilized the same for its own benefit. It is alleged that the tower where the complainant was allotted the flat has been sold to Ansal Real Estate without taking consent of the complainant. Even license has been transferred to Ansal Real Estates and OP has made profit out of it. It is stated that OP is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed for refund of his amount alongwith interest @18% interest per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakh towards mental agony and harassment and has also prayed for Rs.15 lakh towards escalation of cost.
3. OP was served with the notice of the complaint. Initially, counsel for the OP had appeared and filed vakalatnama and sought time to file written statement. Thereafter, the OP stopped appearing in the matter and the OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.05.2016.
4. To prove his case, the complainant has filed his own evidence in the form of affidavit, wherein the contents of the complaint case are reiterated on oath. Complainant has proved on  record the allotment letter exhibited as Annexure C-1. Complainant has also proved on record the receipts of payment as Annexure C-2(Colly) and Annexure C-3 showing payment of Rs.16,14,518/- to OP. He has also reiterated that OP had assured handing over of the flat in question within 02 years from the date of allotment. Complainant has also proved on record the legal notices sent by him to the OP as Annexure C-5. Complainant has also proved on record the letters  which OP had sent to him i.e. letters dated 29.07.2014, 20.08.2014 and 26.08.2014 i.e. Annexures C-6 to C-8 by which the OP has asked the complainant to give his consent for shifting to other project or for refund of money with 7.5% interest. Complainant has further deposed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and that OP has adopted unfair trade practice.
5. Evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no defence of the OP as OP has walked out of the proceedings on its own. Thus, the case of the complainant as set in the complaint stands proved from the unrebutted evidence of complainant. The letter sent by OP to complainant as are proved in the evidence i.e. Annexures C-6 to C-8 show that OP itself has stated its inability to offer the unit and has offered to refund the amount alongwith interest @7.5% per annum form the date of receipt of payment or to choose for another unit. It has also come on record that OP has sold the site to M/s. Ansal Real Estate.
6. In view of the above the above discussion, allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP stands proved. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.16,14,518/- to the complainant within 8 weeks from the receipt of the order alongwith compensation by way of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of receipt of each payment till realization.  OP shall also pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainants.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge.  Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.

              Pronounced in Open Court.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member