VIKAS MALHOTRA Vs. RAMPRASTHA ESTATES PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint under Sec. 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') read with Sec. 22 alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in delay in handing over possession of a plot booked in a project promoted and executed by the opposite party within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with compensation and other costs.

(2.) The facts, according to the complainant, are that on 24/11/2011 he booked a plot admeasuring 300 sq yds in 'Ramprastha City', Sector 37D, Gurgaon by depositing Rs.72,00,000.00 against receipt no 644 on 20/7/2012 (when Rs.3,00,000.00 was refunded from the Rs.75,00,000.00 deposited on 24/11/2011). After several efforts with the opposite party went in vain, the complainant informed the opposite party on 18/12/2015 that the plot had not been allotted nor any communication received even after passage of 4 years. Another reminder was sent on 22/3/2017 when refund with 18% interest compounded quarterly was sought. The complainant states that neither a Plot Buyers Agreement had been executed till date nor any date of handing over communicated by the opposite party till date. The complainant is before this Commission with the prayer to direct the opposite party to:

(3.) Upon notice, the complaint was resisted by the opposite party by way of a reply. Averments of the complainant were denied while admitting the booking of the plot by him. It was stated that a Letter of Intent (LoI) dtd. 24/5/2011 and Licence No. 128 dtd. 28/12/2012 was granted to it for development of a residential plotted colony in Sector 37D, Gurgaon. The layout plan was submitted by it on 28/9/2012; however, due to changes in the Sectoral Plan of Sectors 37 C and D, it was constrained to make changes. On 7/4/2014 it again applied for a new layout plan. Despite reminders dtd. 7/12/2015, 8/6/2016 and 23/12/2016, no approval was received from the concerned authorities. It is contended that the delay is ascribable to acts of omission and commission of Government Authorities such as the Department of Town and Country Planning for which he should not be penalised.