Haryana

Sonipat

CC/42/2016

Mukesh Kumar S/o Dilbagh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Omaxe Housing & Developers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anup Singh Dahiya

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

                                Complaint No.42 of 2016

                                Instituted on:04.02.2016

                                Date of order:22.08.2016

 

Mukesh Kumar Dahiya son of Dilbagh Singh Dahiya, resident of 47E 8 Marla, Sonepat.

                                            ...Complainant.

                           Versus

1.M/s Omaxe Housing & Developers Ltd., Regd. Office 7 LSC Kalkaji New Delhi-19.

2.M/s Omaxe Plaza, GT road, near village Kumaspur, Sonepat through its project manager Sonepat.

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. A.S. Dahiya Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Rajesh Dagar, Adv. for respondents.

          

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH………………………………………………PRESIDENT.

          SMT.PRABHA WATI……………………………………………MEMBER.

           J.L. Gupta…………………………………………………………MEMBER.        

O R D E R

 

            The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he booked a plot in the project of the respondents namely Omaxe Galleria SCO Sonepat and deposited Rs.11,89,601/- with the respondents from time to time.  But the respondents did not keep their promises as they failed to return the deposited amount to the complainant with interest and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and filed their written statement submitting therein that the complainant had booked a shop i.e. commercial premises for commercial activity.  There is no violation/breach of any contractual terms on the part of the respondents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.    However, the complainant was informed by the respondents that they shall refund the amount paid by the complainant after due deduction of the earnest money as per terms of the allotment/application form/registration form.  The total sale price of the shop in dispute was Rs.60,78,007/- inclusive of additional charges and others charges.  The complainant except the payment of Rs.11,89,601/-, did not deposit any other amount with the respondent.   The complainant is not  entitled for any relief and compensation as he is responsible for his own acts and deeds and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments of both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued his case vehemently that the complainant has booked a plot in the project of the respondents namely Omaxe Galleria SCO Sonepat and deposited Rs.11,89,601/- with the respondents from time to time.  But the respondents did not keep their promises as they failed to return the deposited amount to the complainant with interest and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant had booked a shop i.e. commercial premises for commercial activity.  There is no violation/breach of any contractual terms on the part of the respondents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.    However, the complainant was informed by the respondents that they shall refund the amount paid by the complainant after due deduction of the earnest money as per terms of the allotment/application form/registration form.  The total sale price of the shop in dispute was Rs.60,78,007/- inclusive of additional charges and others charges.  The complainant except the payment of Rs.11,89,601/-, did not deposit any other amount with the respondent.   The complainant is not  entitled for any relief and compensation as he is responsible for his own acts and deeds.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.11,89,601/- with the respondents.   The plea of the respondents that the shop in question was booked by the complainant for commercial purposes, is not tenable in the eyes of law  because the respondents have failed  to deliver the possession of the shop in question to the complainant.

          The other plea of the respondents is that the complainant was informed by the respondents that they shall refund the amount paid by the complainant after due deduction of the earnest money as per terms of the allotment/application form/registration form.

          In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondents.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- to the complainant i.e. after deducting 5% (Rs.25,000/-) from the earnest money of Rs.5 Lacs. 

          As far as the other amount of Rs.6,89,601/- is concerned, the respondents are also directed to refund the same to the complainant because they are utilizing the same for their personal use without providing any services to the complainant. 

 

 

 

          With these observations and directions, the present complaint stands allowed with the directions to refund the amount of Rs.4,75,000/- and Rs.6,89,601/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)   (J.L. Gupta)              (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF                 DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 22.08.2016