State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak G. Tripathi, vs M/S M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., on 28 March, 2012
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI- GOA Complaint No. 09/2009 Deepak G. Tripathi, Resident of Villa no.14, Kamat Kinara, Phase III, Miramar, Panaji-Goa. Complainant v/s M/s M. Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Company registered under the Companys Act, having its registered address At House No.144/2, Ashram, Mathura Road, New Delhi 1400 14. Opposite Party Complainant represented by Shri M. J. Aguiar. Opposite Party ex-parte. Coram: Shri Justice N.A. Britto, President Shri. Jagdish G. Prabhudesai, Member Dated: 28/03/2012 ORDER
[Per Shri Justice N. A. Britto, President]
1. By the present complaint, filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant seeks to recover from the opposite party, a sum of Rs.19 lakhs plus interest of Rs. 2,11,759/- as on the date of filing of the complaint and further interest at the rate of 18%, until payment.
2. The opposite party contested the complaint by the written version filed on or about 25/11/2009.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit in evidence with documents on or about 07/01/2010 and so did the opposite party on 05/04/2010. Written arguments were filed by the complainant on or about 09/06/2011.
Opposite Party sought time to file written arguments but remained absent from 11/07/2011. A private notice was sent to the opposite party on or about 12.12.2011 and Shri Nagraj, representative of the opposite party appeared on 10/01/2012 and sought time to engage another advocate. Further adjournment was granted to the opposite party on 08/02/2012 and it was made clear to the opposite party that the adjournment was being granted by way of last opportunity. The opposite party failed to appear on 02/03/2012 and as such we have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant.
4. We perused the record.
5. The case of the complainant is that he is a businessman. According to him, in October 2006, the Complainant was approached by a representative of the Real Estate Company called Homeseek Realtors who introduced the opposite partys company to the complainant and gave their brochures representing that the opposite party was a promoter, builder, developer, etc. and that the opposite party was developing beach apartments and villas in property under survey no.257/1 at Sancoale village in Marmugao taluka. A meeting was organized at the construction site. The complainant entered into an agreement whereby the opposite party agreed to construct four villas in the said project for the complainant within a period of 24 months of launching of the project and a detailed agreement would be executed later on. The Complainant paid to the opposite party Rs.19,00,000/-. Four payments of Rs.4,75,000/- were made out of which two payments were remitted through Bank of India vide RTGS mode routed through State Bank of India, Panaji and two payments were remitted to State Bank of India vide RTGS mode. The details of the receipts are given in para 6 of the complaint. Copies of the same were produced.
6. According to the complainant, although a promise was made that the construction would be completed within 24 months the opposite party showed no signs of beginning with the project. Every time the complainant questioned the opposite partys representative, the complainant would be given some excuse or explanation. The complainant was informed through the said Homeseek Realtors that the opposite party had agreed for cancellation of the agreement and thereafter getting in touch with the opposite party, the O.P. agreed to cancel the agreement and refund the consideration paid by the complainant. The complainant was sent via e-mail on 18/07/2008 by the said Homeseek Realtors cancellation forms for refund of the money. Accordingly the complainant sent four such applications dated 22/07/2008. As no amount was paid, a reminder was sent by the complainant on 14/11/2008 and later a legal notice on 22/12/2008 calling upon the opposite party to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 18%.
7. Although the opposite party filed the written statement so also affidavit in evidence what clearly comes out from the defence taken therein is that the opposite party did not deny having received the said payment made by the said complainant and on the contrary admitted that they were a Real Estate Company having various housing/commercial projects in different places in India. Opposite party stated that:
It is specifically submitted that owing to failure of the complainant to confirm for the purchase of villas by paying further payment as agreed and besides failing to adhere to the terms generally agreed for such purchasers, the opposite party had no option than to abandon the project due to non cooperation and further payment from the proposed purchasers of units and had to incur heavy losses
8. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party having admitted that they were to construct villas in the property under survey no. 257/1 at Sancoale had solicited investment from the purchasers for the proposed construction and the complainant was one from whom the opposite party had solicited investment and not only that, the receipt of the advance payment made through RTGS by the complainant to the opposite party was not at all denied by the opposite party though the opposite party might have stated that the receipts are illegal, invalid documents and cannot be accepted in evidence. Representative of the opposite party was certainly not a necessary party. The representative of the opposite party namely the said Homeseek Realtors was not a necessary party to the complaint and as such the complaint cannot fail on that count.
9. In our view, the complainant has sufficiently proved by his own affidavit in evidence and receipts produced that he had paid for four villas a total sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, and upon failure of the opposite party to construct the same within the stipulated time the complainant was bound to get back the price paid. However, considering the facts we would restrict the payment of interest at 10%.
10. In the light of the above, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant the sum of Rs.4.75 lakhs paid for each of the four villas. Complainant is held entitled to interest at the rate of 10% from the date of respective payments i.e. 4/11/06, 09/10/2006 and 12/10/2006, untill payment.
(Shri Jagdish Prabhudessai) (Justice Shri N.A. Britto) MEMBER PRESIDENT