OM GUPTA Vs. PUSHPA BUILDERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the complainants, in the present complaint, in nutshell is that the complainant had booked a showroom measuring 120 sq. ft. on the upper ground floor of the building known as Pushpa Apartments -III, proposed to be built on Plot No. 44 -A, Rajinder Nagar, Ghaziabad. The O.P. at the time of booking represented that it would be a corner showroom, having a total sale price of Rs. 94,000/ - inclusive of an extra amount of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of the same being a corner showroom having two sides open. The complainant accordingly paid the initial deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/ - on 24.6.1998 and thereafter continued to deposit instalments as and when demanded and in all paid a total amount of Rs. 85,000/ - towards the price of the showroom so booked. It is, however, the case of the complainant that the O.P. has committed fraud on the complainant, inasmuch as on a visit to the site of construction, the complainant found that the showroom in question was only one side open as the other side had been blocked by a wall constructed by the O.P. Furthermore, the building was in a semi -constructed state and no lift was installed though the building is a six -floor building and the installation of lifts is mandatory under the relevant building bye -laws and regulations. Furthermore in May, 1995 on an inquiry from the Ghaziabad Development Authority it was revealed that no completion certificate had been granted in respect of the building in question as the same did not have requisite number of lifts and also because of number of other deviations from the sanctioned plan. Furthermore, the complainant received a bill from the O.P. dated 30.6.1995 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,45,151/ - even though the complainant had already paid Rs. 85,000/ - towards the price of the showroom. Thereafter, another bill dated 7.3.1995 was received in which the earlier amount of Rs. 1,45,151/ - had been increased to Rs. 1,78,672/ -. Accordingly the complainant got a legal notice dated 16.5.1995 served on the O.P. seeking refund of the deposited amount together with interest. Since no response was forthcoming from the O.P., the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for the reliefs as detailed in para 27 of the complaint.

(2.) THE O.P. in its reply/written version has raised a number of preliminary objections: that the complaint being hopelessly time -barred is not maintainable; that the complaint is false and frivolous as O.P. company has fulfilled its part of the contract whereas the complainants have intentionally and deliberately avoided to perform their part of the contract by withholding the legitimate dues of the O.P.; that the complainants are not bona fide consumers having booked the showroom for speculation purposes and not for their own bona fide use and occupation and as such are not consumers.

(3.) ON merits it is admitted that the complainants had booked a showroom as per details mentioned in the complaint. However, it is denied that the said showroom was represented to be two sides open. It is further stated on behalf of the O.P. that the complainants had failed to make payments in respect of the showroom in question whereas the O.P. had offered the possession of the unit booked complete with all amenities including lifts, etc. vide letter dated 16.1.1990 subject to the deposit of the remaining dues. It is further stated that the complainants having failed to come forward to take the possession after depositing the dues, are not entitled to any amount as prayed for in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost in favour of the O.P.