State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Poonam Manshani Wife Of Late Shri ... vs Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ... on 27 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA Complaint No.15 of 2012 Date of Institution: 22.02.2012 Date of Decision: 27.11.2012 Mrs. Poonam Manshani wife of late Shri N.S. Manshani, A-5C/28-A, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Complainant Versus 1. M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through its Director/Competent Person/Competent Authority Regd. Office at: R-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048. And also at: First Floor, Block-B, Vatika Towers, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon, 122002 (Haryana). Opposite Party No.1 2. The AIIMS, (Mangal Murti) Welfare Organization, through its Secretary/Competent Person, Regd. Office at: JC/20, FF Block, Khirkhi Extn. New Delhi-110017. Also at AIIMS Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029. Opposite Party No.2 BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate for Complainant. Opposite Parties exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Complainant is a widow lady and in need of a house to accommodate her family and herself. The complainant applied to the opposite party No.1 for allotment of a flat. The opposite party No.1 is a Company duly incorporated and registered undr the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at R-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048 and marketing office at First Floor, Block-B, Vatika Towers, Golf Course Road, Sector-54, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana). The opposite party No.2 is the Welfare Organization registered as registration No.S/67124/2009 dated 30.09.2009 for the welfare of the complainant and others.
Opposite Party No.1, who is a builder, had shown a very high rosy picture and announced the launch of a premium residential complex project referred to as BEVERLY HOMES at FERROUS CITY Phase-II, Sector-89, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the Project) which was proposed to be developed by opposite party No.1 and marketed through the opposite party No.2, as a MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) dated 16.03.2010, signed between the parties No.1 and 2. The opposite party No.1 had assured and represented that BEVERLY HOMES would be a premium residential complex and address for a prominent living life style destination offering flats. The opposite parties further represented that BEVERLY HOMES was located in close proximity of all prominent places and the Project would offer a tranquil environment in the National Capital Region (NCR) thereby affording a vied selection of upscale well-planned residential complex. It was also assured that the Project consisting of most prestigious and premium project would offer the best working, ample stilt parking, shopping, working and hospitality facilities within a minutes drive, excellent location alongwith superior accessibility to the National Capital Region and that the Project would consist of a grand skyline and would be stamped with the individual brilliance of the worlds top celebrated architects and planners. It was also assured that the above said Project would offer super futuristically developed offices with excellent location having an excellent connectivity. Believing the opposite parties, the complainant booked a residential space with the opposite party No.1 in the above said Project and the complainant was enrolled as a member with the opposite party No.2 vide membership form dated 07.04.2010. The complainant made payment Rs.150/- vide cheque dated 06.04.2010 and Rs.2,00a,000/- vide cheque dated 14.04.2010 in favour of the opposite party No.2 the receipt dated 03.05.2010 of which was issued to the complainant. The application form and receipt have been annexed as Annexures C-1, C-1 and C-1/3. A Flat Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-2) was executed. The complainant made payments on different dates to the tune of Rs.13,65,602/- as detailed in para 10 of the complaint.
Complainant received a letter dated 05.01.2011 from the opposite party No.1 which was replied vide letter dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure C-3) demanding the details of construction till date but the opposite party No.1 did not reply the said letter dated 12.01.2011 sent by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 10.02.1011 paid Rs.20,475/- as per the demand raised by opposite party No.1 and again sought details of the construction. Complainant further paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 19.07.201 and 08.08.2011 but the opposite party failed to apprise the details of the construction. But the opposite party No.1 instead of supplying the information to the complainant so demanded, wrote a letter dated 11.05.2011 thereby demanding another amount of Rs.3,18,071/-
from the complainant and to avoid any dispute, the complainant issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- dated 30.09.2011 and also asked about the status of the Project. Again the opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 01.10.2011 informed the complainant that a sum of Rs.7,12,102/- was yet to be paid by the complainant and for that reason the opposite party No.1 cancelled the booking of the complainant and returned the cheque of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant vide letter dated 11.10.2011 (Anneuxre C-7/1) stated that the demand raised by the opposite party No.1 was not in accordance with the construction linked payment plan and further requested the opposite party No.1 to re-consider the request of the complainant. Another request was made by the complainant vide letter dated 15.10.2011 (Annexure C-7/2). Complainant also visited the opposite party No.1 a number of times and on their advice issued a letter dated 1.11.2011 (Annexure C-8) to avoid any dispute and showed her willingness to clear all the demands raised by the opposite party No.1. Complainant met Mr. Umesh Sharma and Shri Vipin, G.M. and under their assurance wrote letter dated 24.11.2011 (Annexure C-9) alongwith a cheque dated 23.11.2011 for a sum of Rs.7,36,161/- but the Opposite Party No.1 refused to accept the aforesaid cheque vide letter 28.11.2011 (Annexure C-10) and also called upon the complainant to visit their office within 3 days from the date of issue of letter dated 28.11.2011 for considering the request for rein-station of the booked flat of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 a number of times and also requested the opposite party No.1 for restoration of the booked flat but the opposite party No.1 failed to honour the commitment thereby causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant and thus cheated the complainant.
The grievance of the complainant is that the act of the opposite party No.1 of canceling the allotment of the complainant inspite of the fact that a sum of Rs.14,15,602/- already stands paid by the complainant and another sum of Rs.7,36,161/- was taken and being paid by the complainant as per the demand raised by the opposite party No.1, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. The intention of the opposite party No.1 was malafide from the very beginning and the intention was to only collect money from unsuspecting buyers like the complainant, who booked the flat with a view to utilize the same for residence. The complainant has also come to know that the opposite party No.1 has no ownership initially and no sanction of any plan/permission to develop such project till date has been taken by the opposite party No.1. According to the complainant, the opposite party No.1 is habitual defaulter and overlooked the observations of the Honble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in appeal bearing First Appeal No.557 of 2003, decided on 20th April, 2007 titled as Brig.(Regd.) Kamal Sood Vs. DLF Universal Ltd., and another judgment in complaint bearing No.1182/2003 titlted Smt. Jalaj Kumari vs. M/s D.L.F. Universla Ltd. With these averments, the complainant has filed complaint before this Commission with the following prayer:-
a) To restore the allotment of Flat No.T2-26/GF thereby declaring the cancellation letter dated 01.10.2011 and 11.10.2011 and letter dated 28.11.2011 as null and void;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization towards penalty on account of non-adherence to the construction schedule;
c) To pay Rs.5 lacs on account of harassment, humiliation and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties but none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and opposite parties were proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.07.2012.
In her evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C-10.
We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case file.
From the record it is established that the complainant has booked a residential space with the opposite party No.1 and the complainant was enrolled as a member with the opposite party No.2. A Flat Buyer Agreement was executed between the parties and the complainant had been depositing the amount with the opposite parties from time to time and paid total amount of Rs.14,15,602/- but still the opposite party cancelled the booking of the complainant. Since the claim of the complainant remained unrebutted on the record, we have no hesitation to accept the version of the complainant in view of the evidence produced by the complainant. As per As per the Standard Floors Buyer Agreement, the Company had proposed to handover the possession of the Floor to the complainant within a period of 24 months from the date of issuance of the sanctioned letter of the Project. However, in view of the consent of the complainant, the Company was entitled to grace period of 180 days after the expiry of 24 months for applying and obtaining the Occupation Certificate in respect of the Project from the concerned authority. Thus, the opposite parties have proved themselves deficient in service. Hence, we hold the opposite parties deficient in service and involved in unfair trade practice.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept this complaint and issue direction to the opposite parties to allot a flat to the complainant on the same price and same terms and conditions as stipulated in Flat Buyer Agreement (Annexure C-2). The complainant would pay the balance price of the flat alongwith interest as per agreement. The complainant is further awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) on account of un-necessarily harassment and mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties. The litigation expenses is assessed at Rs.11,000/-.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 27.11.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member