IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution : 08.01.2020 Date of Reserving the order: 18.12.2024 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 CC No. 02/2020 IN THE MATTER OF Mr. Sunil Aggarwal S/o Mr. Tara Chand Aggarwal R/o BC-38, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 (Through: Ms. Prachi Johri &

Mr. Vatsalya Kumar, Advocates)

..…Complainant VERSUS Suncity Hi-tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Having its Registered Office at:

Mezzanine Floor, M-4, NDSE-Part II, New Delhi-110049 Also at:

C-1, Sector-3, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 (E-mail: secretarial@waveinfratech.com)

(Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate)

..…Opposite Party CORAM:

HON‟BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, PRESIDING MEMBER Present: Ms. Prachi Johri, counsel for Complainant Ms. Archana Murmu, counsel for OP PER: HON‟BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

JUDGMENT

1. Brief f acts of the case are that the Opposite Party came up with an advertisement for development of residential plots in the name of proposed township at District Ghaziabad. Being lured by the advertisement, vide Registration Form dated 10.04.2006, the Complainant applied for provisional allotment of residential plot of 250 sq. yards @ Rs. 8,245/- per sq. yard with the Opposite Party and the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.6,18,375/- to the Opposite Party vide cheque bearing no. 608177 dated 12.04.2006 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, towards the advance booking. As per Registration Form, the total sale price of the said plot was of Rs.20,61,250/-. As per clause (d) of Registration Form, the Opposite Party agreed that in case the Opposite Party failed to offer provisional allotment of residential plot within 15 months from the date of application, then the Opposite Party shall refund the entire deposited amount along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of payment, to the Complainant.

2. It is the case of Complainant that the Opposite Party after receiving the amount of Rs.6,18,375/- from him stopped responding to his calls. As and when, he tried to contact the Opposite Party to know the status of township, the representatives of Opposite Party failed to give any plausible reply. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote letter dated 14.06.2017 to the Opposite Party and sought refund of his entire money. But, the Opposite Party did not even reply to the same. Thereafter, the Complainant issued legal notice dated 05.10.2019 to the Opposite Party and sought refund of his entire money along with interest @ 10% p.a. Vide letter dated 24.10.2019, the Opposite Party replied the legal notice and unequivocally admitted its liability and acknowledged the Complainant as an allottee. However, the Opposite Party did not refund the money of the Complainant.

3. Thus, the Complainant was left with no other option but to file the complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.

4. After the complaint was filed before this Commission, notice of the complaint was issued to the Opposite Party on 13.01.2020.

5. Since, no one had appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service, the Opposite Party was proceeded ex-parte by Ld Predecessor vide order dated

06.03.2020.

6. On 12.01.2021, Mr. Anurag Ranjan, Advocate had appeared on behalf of Opposite Party and vehemently submitted that the Opposite Party was proceeded ex- parte despite filing the written statement within the prescribed time period i.e. 25.02.2020 and not placing on record the written statement by the Registry.

7. On perusal of written statement, it is clear that the written statement was filed by the Opposite Party vide dairy no. 1170 dated 25.02.2020. In these circumstances, the written statement filed by the Opposite Party was taken on record by Ld Predecessor and Opposite Party was directed to file evidence vide order dated

22.01.2021.

8. In the written statement, the Opposite Party stated that the complaint is liable to be rejected as the same is misuse and abuse of process of law. This Commissio