CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.102/2015

MAHINDRA KUMAR DUBEY

1, WESTEND GREEN FARM,

VILLAGE: RAJOKRI,

DELHI                                    …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.

ARUN DEV BUILDTECH PVT. LTD.

612, YAMUNA APARTMENTS,

HOLI CHOWK,

DEVLI VILLAGE,

DELHI- 110062.                         ..…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-11.03.2015

             Date of Order- 10.01.2023

     O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

The complaint pertains to deficiency in service in non- handing over of a plot developed by OP.

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was approached by OP agent for booking plots in Arun Dev City at Faridabad, Haryana. The complainant booked a plot admeasuring 54 sq. yard @4500 per sq. yard in Arun Dev City at Jasana (Nehar-Pak) in Faridabad, Haryana. The complainant paid Rs. 1,71,000/- in installments towards remittance for the said plot.

It is alleged that the scheme was launched for Economically Weaker Section (EWS). It is further alleged that these bookings were made at prelaunch stage and requisite permissions from Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana has not been received. The complainant was expecting to receive the allotment within 6 months from the date of application. The complainant contends that not even an approach road exists for Arun Dev City and no schedule is available as to when the project will be ready.

The complainant submits that OP has been demanding money for external development charge and internal development charge when nothing is visible at the site. The complainant prays that the OP should hand over the said plot upon balance payment or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs. 1,71,000/- along with 24% interest and pay Rs. 33,000/- as cost of litigation.

Notice was issued to OP but none appeared. Right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 2.2.2016.

Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and receipts dated 24.3.2012, 24.1.2013, 4.4.2013, 27.10.2013, 23.11.2013.

None appeared to assist the Commission at the time of arguments. Therefore, the Commission decided to proceed with this matter as per law with materials on record.

We have considered the material on record. The receipts annexed with the complaint shows that they were issued on account of plot No. 4037. The complainant has made the following payments:-

It is clear that OP has received Rs. 1,71,000/- from the complainant in lieu of Plot No. 4037. OP has not handed away any possession till date. In the absence of any denial or rebuttal by OP, the Complainant’s stand regarding deficiency in service stands proved.

Hence, we find OP guilty of deficiency in service in not giving the possession of flat and is directed to refund Rs. 1,71,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from date of payment till realization along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)               (RITU GARODIA)      (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)

           MEMBER                                      MEMBER                        PRESIDENT