Back
CC 1839/2017
Page 1 of 11
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
RESERVED ON: 21.12.2020
PRONOUNCED ON: 07.01.2021
COMPLAINT NO. 1839/2017
IN THE MATTER OF
SARIKA VERMA & ANR.
..…. COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/S DIVYANSH INFRATECH PVT. LTD. …...OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:
HON’BLE
DR.
JUSTICE
SANGITA
DHINGRA
SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, (MEMBER)
Present: Ms. MONIKA KAPOOR, Advocate, Counsel for Complainant.
Mr. NIRAJ KR. SINGH, Advocate, Counsel for Opposite Party.
PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
[Via Video Conferencing]
1.
Present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Smt. Sarika Verma and Shri. Vipin
Kumar
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
“Complainants”)
against
M/S Divyansh Infratech Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Opposite
Party”) seeking the following reliefs:
A. The Opposite Party be directed to refund the amount of
Rs. 34,44,150/- with 18% interest pendent lite and future
interest, from the date of payment, till the date of realisation
of the amount;
CC 1839/2017
Page 2 of 11
B. The Opposite party may also be directed to pay damages
and compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/- to the complainants for
rentals paid by them for the delayed period @ Rs 20,000/-
P.M.;
C. The Complainants may also be awarded costs of Rs.
1,00,000/- for compensation as damages for the mental pain
and agony suffered by the complainants at the hands of the
Opposite Party.
D. Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of
the
Complainant
and
against
the
opposite
party.
2.
The facts of the present case are that the Complainants had booked a
flat with the Opposite Party in the Project title “Divyansh Flora” in
Greater Noida West in Tower B1, Unit No. 704, floor-area measuring
965 SQ FT, on 7th floor constructed in “Gaur City-2”. The basic sale
price of the project was stipulated at Rs. 3569.06 per sq. ft. totaling to
Rs. 34,44,150/- and on 06.07.2013, an agreement was executed
between the parties. The Complainants paid a sum of Rs. 33, 56, 148/-
over a period of time as per the installments till October 2015 and
only the last payment of 5% was pending which was to be paid by the
complainants at the time of possession.
3.
It is the case of the Complainants that despite making the timely
payments for the allotted flat in the Opposite Party’s project, the
Opposite party failed to handover the actual physical possession of the
said flat within the time period as stipulated in the allotment cum
agreement letter and the possession was only offered after a delay of
more than a year.
4.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite Party raised a
preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present
complaint case before this commission. The counsel for the Opposite
CC 1839/2017
Page 3 of 11
Party contended that this commission lacked territorial jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present case as the property in question is situated in
Greater Noida. Pressing the aforesaid preliminary objection, the
counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party prayed that the
complaint should be dismissed at the outset.
5.
The Counsel for the Opposite Party further contended that there exists
no deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite Party which is
evident from the fact that the Opposite Party offered possession vide
letter dated 12.08.2017, of the said flat to the Complainants and
requested the complainant to pay the remainder of the outstanding
amount in order transfer the possession of the flat in question,
however, the complainants refused to take the possession of the flat
and denied the alleged outstanding amount
