Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Judicial Member)
Arjun Chandele —Complainant
versus
Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.548 of 2017
Decided on 28.9.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 –S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Complicated questions of fact – if can be adjudicated by State Commission – Complaint has been filed for alleged delay in allotment of flats – Whether the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, which should be decided by the civil court – Therefore the Complainant avail the services of the Opposite Parties for a consideration –However, the Opposite Parties failed to complete the said project, aggrieved by which, the Complainant has sought the refund of the amount paid by him – Hence, the Complainant is entitled to file the present complaint before this commission since the Complainant is aggrieved by the deficient services of the Opposite Party i.e., the failure of the Opposite Parties to handover the possession of the said flat within reasonable time and it is only due to this reason, that the refund of the amount paid is sought from the Opposite Parties, which this Commission is authorised to adjudicate – Thus nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basis of the pleadings filed on behalf of the contesting parties. Consequently, Commission is of the view that the present complaint falls within the four corners of the jurisdiction of this commission and there is no bar with respect to the jurisdiction of this commission to entertain cases related to the refund of amount deposited with the Opposite Parties. [Paras 18 to 20]
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.47(1)] – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat – Delayed Possession – Refund for – Delayed possession “ if the possession is delivered beyond the 42 months or beyond 48 months, the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party shall stand proved. It is clear that the Opposite Parties failed to handover the possession of the flat in question even after the passing of more than fifteen years from the date of booking. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties stands proved “ direct the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant i.e., Rs. 6,26,007/- along with interest – Complaint allowed.
Result: Complaint allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President)—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and has prayed the following reliefs:—
(a) Directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.6,26,007.00 (Rupees six lacs twenty six thousand and seven only) already paid by the complaint to the opposite party, together with interest @24% per annum from the date of payment by the Complainant till its realization.
(b) Compensation/damages of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) in favour of the Complainant and against the opposite party, for the inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and pain suffered by the Complainant because of the unwarranted, arbitrary and whimsical act and conduct of the opposite party.
(c) Interest on the compensation @ 24% per annum till realization of the compensation.
(d) The cost of the present proceedings in favour of the Complainant and against the opposite party: and
(e) Such other/further order (s) as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Complainant.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that on 14.08.2006, the Complainant booked a flat having the area 1395 Sq. Ft. @ Rs.1975/- per sq ft with the Opposite Parties vide registration form no. 546470 in the project “Voila” situated at NH-24, Ghaziabad, UP. The Complainant also deposited Rs. 3,00,000/- along with application form. Subsequently, Opposite Parties vide letter dated 14.09.2006 confirmed and acknowledged the receipt of the application as well as the payment of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties assured that the construction of the said flat will be completed within 3 years from date of the booking. Moreover, the Complainant sent letter dated 30.05.2008 with a request either to hand over the possession or refund the entire amount paid by Complainant but no satisfactory response was given by the Opposite Parties. Further, Mr. Jatinder Singh on behalf of the Opposite Parties contacted the Complainant whereby he admitted the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and assured the Complainant that the Opposite Parties would solve the matter after discussing the issue with the management as soon as possible but all the assurances turned out to be false and bogus. Till date the neither possession of the said flat has not been handed over nor amount paid by Complainant refunded by the Opposite Parties.
3. The Opposite Parties have contested the present case and raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Parties submitted that this commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submitted that this commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the subject property in question is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this commission.
The Complainant over the time had paid a sum of Rs. 6,26,007/- to the Opposite Parties as and when demanded by it. The Complainant also sent legal notice dated 03.08.2015 to the Opposite Parties seeking refund of the amount along with interest but was of no avail.
4. The counsel for the Opposite Parties also contended that the present complaint involves complicated question of facts and law, which require detail evidence, examination and cross examination of witnesses and the same cannot be adjudicated in a summary procedure before this commission. He also contended that the Complainant defaulted in making timely payments as per the payment schedule.
5. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
6. We have perused th
Complicated questions – Nothing cogent has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties which would reflect that there are such complicated questions involved which could not be settled on the basi....
Absence of prayer “ Even in absence of specific prayer, this commission can grant a relief which is justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Commercial Purpose - Mere allegation, that the purchase of the property is for commercial purpose, cannot be the ground to reject the present consumer complaint.
(1) Mere allegation that purchase of the property is for commercial purpose cannot be ground to reject the consumer complaint.(2) In the event a person entitled to seek additional special remedy prov....
Allotment of plot – If there is no time limit for performance of particular promise given by one party, it is to be performed within reasonable time.
(1) Jurisdiction - Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the cases relating to allotment agreement including delay in handing over possession of the said flat, as compensation for delay in han....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
