DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.176/2016

Smt. Anjula Gupta

W/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan,

R/o 302, Agarsen Awas

66, I.P. Extn. Delhi - 110092                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

The Cardman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

801-814 Plot No.58, Block-C,

Shahpuri Tirath Singh Tower

DDA Community Centre

Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058                                    ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         08.06.2016

       Date of Order            :         24.12.2021

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K.Tyagi

The case of the Complainant is that she had booked a studio apartment in the scheme under the name and style of Vardhman Metroplis 2 Studio Apartments admeasuring 550 Sq. Ft. The complainant had paid initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 14th November, 2010 with the M/s Vardhman Buildtech (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred as OP) and balance payment of Rs.13,30,000/- was made on 07.12.2010 and 02.02.2011. It was assured by the OP that the assured return @15% p.a. shall be allowed till the possession of studio is given. The first two cheques amounting Rs.16,088/- each were received. The last cheque dated 05.10.2015 got dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The OP had failed to start the work on aforesaid project till 2014. The Complainant vide its letter dated 12.06.2014 requested for cancellation of the aforesaid studio and refund of the amount of Rs.14,30,000/- deposited by her due to personal reason and non-start of the said project(Exh.C-1/1). The OP failed to refund the amount, therefore, the Complainant got the legal notice sent on 25.06.2016.

      The OP has objected to territorial jurisdiction of this forum as the property in question is located in Greater Noida (UP). OP has also denied the deficiency in service or breach on its parts in its preliminary objections. The OP has not got original receipt till date. The OP has denied almost all the averments made by Complainant, except Para 3 in its reply.

The Complainant also filed rejoinder, evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments. The OP had also filed written statement, evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments. Arguments heard and concluded on behalf of complainant but OP and its attorney are absenting themselves since long.

It is examined by this Commission that Para 3 of the complaint talks about amount deposited by the Complainant at various dates such as Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.11.2010, Rs.13,30,000/- on 07.12.2010 and 02.02.2011 through two cheques as principal amount and service tax of Rs.36,823/- on 31.01.2011. Whereas, the OP vide its reply in Para 3 accepts that the averments made in Para 3 of the Complaint is not disputed being matter of record. With this, it becomes undisputed that the Complainant has booked the aforesaid studio and paid the aforesaid amount. The OP has also stated that rejection of said studio was on account of recession and down trend in real estate in the market in 2014. All facts seems to have been accepted by the OP but also maintained that the Complainant has not deposited the original receipts of payment issued by him whereas it is observed that the Complainant has categorically mentioned about the submission of original receipts in its letter dated 12.06.2014 (Ex.C1/1). But the Complainant has also submitted an affidavit indemnifying the OP against all damages, losses, claims, costs etc towards these payments..

Further, it is also assumed that the OP had also started to give the cheque of interest @15% p.a. every month on the failure of the project as return to the Complainant. It is also noticed that the possession of aforesaid studio was to be given in 2012 and cancellation of aforesaid studio was requested in 2014 only.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of conscious view that the deficiency in service is committed by the OP. Accordingly, OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.14,66,823/- which is paid to the OP by Complainant, and Rs.25,000/- as compensation causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges plus interest @6% p.a. on the above quoted entire amount from the date of institution of case in this Commission within three months failing which interest shall be levied @9% p.a. on said amount.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.