IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 24.05.2019 Date of Reserving the order: 22.04.2025 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 CC No. 529/2019 IN THE MATTER OF Mrs. Vandana Gautam W/o Mr. Vikas Gautam R/o C-618, Ground Floor, JVTS Garden, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi-110074 (Through: Mr. Divyya Kapur & Mr. Sidhnat Kapur, Advocates)

..…Complainant VERSUS Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Bhagat Singh R/o 169, Second Floor, Near Jang Kalyan, Rajpur Khurd Extension, New Delhi-110074 (proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2024)

..…Opposite Party CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, PRESIDING MEMBER Present: Mr. Sidhant Kapur, counsel for the Complainant None for the OP.

PER: HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

JUDGMENT

1. The C omplainant, initially filed the complaint no. 297/2016 before the District Consumer Forum (South District), Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi. Later on, the complaint was transferred to this Commission by Ld District Forum vide order dated 14.05.2019 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as value of the suit property was Rs.45 lakhs. The parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 27.05.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case as per complaint are that the Complainant is a teacher in MCD Primary School (Girls), Chattarpur, New Delhi. In the month of May, 2015, the Opposite Party introduced himself as a reputed builder to Complainant & her husband and assured them that he is sole owner and in possession of First Floor of the property bearing no. C-619 admeasuring 180 sq. yards located at JVTS Garden, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi. Believing the representations made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant agreed to purchase the said property from the Opposite Party. Accordingly, the ‘Agreement to Sell’ dated 28.05.2015 (Annexure-A Page 10 to 14 of complaint) was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. As per the Agreement, the total sale price of the said property was Rs.45,00,000/-. At the time of execution of Agreement, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Opposite Party vide cheques bearing no. 049370 & 003972. As per Agreement, the remaining amount of Rs.41,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.11.2015.

3. It is the case of Complainant that she further paid a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party issued a receipt dated 06.06.2015 (Annexure-B Page 17 of complaint) acknowledging of having been received a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- from Complainant. The receipt was also signed by two witnesses of Opposite Party, namely, Mr. Sunil &

Ms. Lakshmi.

4. It is the further case of Complainant that in the month of August 2015, the Opposite Party for the very first time disclosed that he was not actually the owner of the property as represented by him orally as well as in the Agreement. The Opposite Party further disclosed that he had entered into Collaboration Agreement with the actual owner of the property, under which he was entitled to get the said property as his share of the deal. He further informed the Complainant that the Collaboration Agreement between the Opposite Party and actual owner of property stood cancelled and therefore, he was no longer in a position to fulfill his obligation under the ‘Agreement to Sell.’

5. It is the further case of Complainant that although the Opposite Party was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, yet with a view to avoid needless and traumatic litigation, she agreed with the Opposite Party to an amicable termination of said Agreement, but subject to condition that the Opposite Party would refund to her a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. However, as per the terms of Agreement, in the event of failure on part of Opposite Party, he would pay the double of earnest money, which amounted to Rs.8 lakhs, but she agreed to receive a lesser amount only for the sake of buying peace.

6. It is the further case of Complainant that pursuant to the oral Agreemen