ANURAG RUFRA @ ANURAG TIWARY Vs. ABW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainants Anurag Rudra @ Mr.Anurag Tiwary and anr. against the opposite parties M/s. ABW Infrastructure Ltd. & anr.

(2.) The brief facts of the complaint are that the opposite parties floated a scheme for purchase of "retail space" in the proposed IT park/gateway tower. The complainants jointly booked "retail spaces" having unit Nos.025,026 and 027 at ground floor admeasuring aggregate tentative total super area 3099 sq.ft. @Rs.8,680.85 per sq.ft. amounting to Rs.2,69,01,957/-. The complainants paid total amount of Rs.2,78,99,482/- including the service tax on 17.06.2013. The buyers' agreement was executed on 17.06.2013. The period of competition was three years. The opposite parties under the scheme of "assured investment return plan" issued 28 post-dated cheques starting from June, 2013 till September, 2015 to each of the complainants after deducting TDS. The complainant received payment of assured return till August, 2015. The complainant also received the September, 2015 cheque but the same bounced. The complainant filed complaint before the competent court for the bouncing of cheque for September, 2015. The complainant has now filed this complaint seeking refund of the amount paid along with 24% p.a. interest beyond September, 2015 till actual payment.

(3.) As the written statement was filed with delay, the same was not accepted and the complainant was directed to file the evidence by way of affidavit vide order dated 15.2.2017. On the day of hearing the learned counsel for the complainant was heard as none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. Opposite parties have filed written submission. It has been stated that the opposite parties have already paid the assured return by way of post-dated cheques and have never denied the payment of assured return to the complainants. The progress in the project was halted due to an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also due to the fact that account of the project was frozen by the CBI. Thus, these were force majeure conditions and therefore, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for delay. It has been requested to dismiss the complaint.